DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim(s) 5/12/19 recite(s) one or more radial weighing functions. It seems the cited radial weighing functions is intended to be “radial weighting functions”. Please confirm. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6/13 recites the limitation "the determined high-saturated colors". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 8, 10-11, 13-14, 15, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh et al. (US 2014/0078198 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2014/0225933 A1) and High et al. (The Helmholtz-Kohlrausch effect on display-based light colors and simulated substrate colors, Color Res Appl. 2023: 49:167-177, Jan. 2023).
Regarding Claim 1, Roh discloses a computer-implemented method ([0005]: Some example embodiments provide methods and/or devices for controlling the operations of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display to reduce power consumption without having an effect on visually perceived brightness) comprising:
increasing a chroma of one or more particular hues of an image for display on a display device, ([0061]: Moreover, the image data processing circuit 230A, via the chroma control circuit 236-3 may perform the adjusting at S275, for example, increasing chroma (or chrominance) values output from the first conversion circuit 234 based on the chroma control values CH_CTR. Fig.1: notice the image data is to be displayed on the OLED Display 300);
increasing perceptual brightness of the image without changing actual brightness of the image ([0071]: As compared to the situation according to which an image is displayed on the display 300 based on the original RGB values, when an image is displayed on the display 300 based on the second RGB values the power consumption of the display 300 is reduced due to the decreased luminance values while the perceived brightness of the image displayed on the display 300 is not changed or increased due to the increased chroma values); and
reducing, by a specified amount, luminance values ([0071]: As compared to the situation according to which an image is displayed on the display 300 based on the original RGB values, when an image is displayed on the display 300 based on the second RGB values the power consumption of the display 300 is reduced due to the decreased luminance values while the perceived brightness of the image displayed on the display 300 is not changed or increased due to the increased chroma values).
Roh discloses As will be described further, with respect to FIG. 2, the processor 200A may transform image data (e.g., original Red, Green, Blue (RGB) values or first RGB values associated with the original RGB values), into luminance values and chroma values to be displayed on the display 300. The processor 200A may further adjust the luminance values and the chroma values (e.g., increase or decrease the luminance and chroma values) based on at least one control value ([0049]). Roh further discloses decreasing luminance values while the perceived brightness of the image displayed on the display 300 is not changed or increased due to the increased chroma values ([0071]: the power consumption of the display 300 is reduced due to the decreased luminance values while the perceived brightness of the image displayed on the display 300 is not changed or increased due to the increased chroma values). But Roh fails to explicitly recite reducing, by a specified amount, a lightness of at least one of two particular hues to increase global contrast between various hues.
However Park discloses a PHOSITA, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, had already known the relationship between luminance and lightness of RGB can be expressed as
PNG
media_image1.png
19
370
media_image1.png
Greyscale
([0083])
From the equation 1 disclosed by Park, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to recognize that decreasing luminance Y can be realized by reducing lightness of at least one of R, G, B colors (hues) and reducing one lightness of hue while others remain unchanged would naturally result in an increase global contrast between various hues. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Park into that of Roh and to include the limitation of reducing, by a specified amount, a lightness of at least one of two particular hues to increase global contrast between various hues in order to reduce power consumption as suggested by Park ([0008]: Aspects of embodiments of the present invention are directed toward a method of reducing power consumption, and a display device for reducing power consumption despite increasing saturation to improve the external visibility of the display device).
Roh modified by Park fails to explicitly recite the one or more particular hues (whose chroma is increased) having at least a threshold magnitude of a visual perception effect based on a contrast between one or more colors and a background color.
However High discloses it is evident in side-by-side heterochromatic comparisons, where colors appear brighter as they become more saturated. This is particularly noticeable when comparing high chroma colors to a reference achromatic color of equal luminance. This phenomenon is referred to as the Helmholtz-Kohlrausch effect (p.167 left col. first paragraph). High further discloses the H-K effect as being weakest in the yellow hues, and increasing in strength towards blue hues (p.168 left col. lines 2-3).
PNG
media_image2.png
402
805
media_image2.png
Greyscale
High discloses For each test color we obtained the average matching observer-adjusted achromatic lightness
L
o
*
. Results are plotted in Figure 2. A skilled person would have learned from Figure 2 that the HK effects are at peak in magenta, blue hues but lowest in the yellow hues. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of High into that of Roh modified by Park and to choose to adjust chroma of hues such as blue and magenta which are sensitive to HK effects and include the limitation of the one or more particular hues having at least a threshold magnitude of a visual perception effect based on a contrast between one or more colors and a background color for controlling the operations of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display to reduce power consumption without having an effect on visually perceived brightness as suggested by Roh ([0005]). This is because the visual perception effect (which is HK effect) is at peak around some particular hues such as blue and magenta. By increasing a chroma of those peak HK effect hues (e.g. blue or magenta), a minimum visual perception effect (threshold magnitude of a visual perception effect) based on the contrast between those peak HK effect hues and other background hues.
Regarding Claim 3, Roh further teaches or suggests wherein the visual perception effect is a Helmholtz-Kohlrausch (HK) effect ([0002]: According to the Helmholtz-Kohlrausch effect, brightness of a display depends on factors such as luminance and chroma. Furthermore, brightness increases as chroma increases at a fixed luminance. [0005]: Some example embodiments provide methods and/or devices for controlling the operations of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display to reduce power consumption without having an effect on visually perceived brightness).
Regarding Claim 4, Roh as modified further teaches or suggests wherein the one or more particular hues having at least the threshold magnitude of HK effect include at least one of magenta, violet or blue (see High Figure 2. High teaches peak HK effects occur at magenta or blue hues. Also see p.168 left col. lines 2-3: the H-K effect as being weakest in the yellow hues, and increasing in strength towards blue hues). The same reason to combine as that of Claim 1 is applied.
Regarding Claim 6, Roh teaches or suggests wherein reducing the lightness of the determined high-saturated colors saves power consumption of the display device ([0061]: In general such transformation may be applied to image data processing circuits that decrease luminance values to reduce power consumption of the display 300, e.g., OLED display, and that increase chroma values (or chrominance values in come occasions) to maintain the visually perceived brightness of images displayed on the display 300).
Regarding Claim 7, Roh further teaches or suggests wherein picture quality for the display device is improved at a same time power consumption is preserved or reduced ([0005]: Some example embodiments provide methods and/or devices for controlling the operations of an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display to reduce power consumption without having an effect on visually perceived brightness. [0071]: As compared to the situation according to which an image is displayed on the display 300 based on the original RGB values, when an image is displayed on the display 300 based on the second RGB values the power consumption of the display 300 is reduced due to the decreased luminance values while the perceived brightness of the image displayed on the display 300 is not changed or increased due to the increased chroma values).
Regarding Claims 8, 10-11 and 13-14, Claims 8, 10-11 and 13-14 are similar to Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 except in the format of non-transitory processor-readable medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are also applied to Claims 8, 10-11 and 13-14.
Regarding Claims 15, 17-18 and 20, Claims 15, 17-18 and 20 are similar to Claims 1, 3-4 and combination of 6-7 except in the format of non-transitory processor-readable medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claims 1, 3-4 and 6-7 are also applied to Claims 15, 17-18 and 20.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2/9/16 and 5/12/19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, either individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obviousness the limitation of wherein the two particular hues to increase the global contrast are red and yellow as claimed in independent Claim(s) 2/9/16 and the limitation of wherein one or more radial weighing functions are used to adjust saturation and lightness of the image based on at least one of hue or the saturation as claimed in independent Claim(s) 5/12/19. The closest prior art, Roh et al. (US 2014/0078198 A1), discloses decreasing luminance values to reduce power consumption of the display and increasing chroma values (or chrominance values in come occasions) to maintain the visually perceived brightness of images displayed on the display ([0061]). However, prior arts fail to disclose above cited limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613