DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-27 are currently pending in the present application. Claims 1, 12 and 23 are currently amended; claims 2-5, 7-11, 14-22 and 24-26 are original; claims 6 and 13 are canceled; and claims 27 is newly added. The amendment dated July 29, 2026 has been entered into the record.
Claim 23 was previously objected to for informalities. The objection is now withdrawn as the applicant has amended the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 6 lines 1-2, “6. (Canceled) The electronic device of claim 5, wherein the first voltage is greater than the second voltage.” should be “6. (Canceled)”. For example, see Claim 13 recites “13. (Canceled)”.
The examiner further notes it is not clear whether “6. (Canceled)” is a typographical error or not based on the 07/29/2026 Remarks. See the 07/29/2026 Remarks annotated by the examiner below.
Appropriate correction is required.
< the 07/29/2026 Remarks>
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
262
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (It states claim 13 is canceled. Wasn’t claim 6 canceled as well in the amendments? Which is a typo?)]
[AltContent: textbox (It states claims 1-5 and 7-27 will be pending. But wasn’t claim 13 previously canceled in the Remarks? Then claims 1-5, 7-12 and 14-27 will be pending. Which has typographical errors - the 07/29/2026 Amendments or the 07/29/2026 Remarks?
)]
Response to Arguments
Regarding newly amended claims 1, 12 and 23, the applicant argues that the prior art of Mathur and Ato fail to disclose “wherein the compensated image data comprises an adjustment to a contrast, a color value, or both of the augmented reality image content” (see Remarks, Pages 3-12).
Applicant's arguments with respect to at least claim 1 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive by the following reasons:
The examiner notes the originally filed specification does not explicitly disclose the feature of “wherein the compensated image data comprises an adjustment to a contrast, a color value, or both of the augmented reality image content” wherein the applicant fails to provide any support in the 07/29/2026 Remarks. For example, the term “a color value” is not recited in the specification, and the term “contrast” in the newly amended claim is not recited in the specification. Rather, the term “contrast” is consistently recited as “perceived contrast” in the specification because the augmented reality (AR) image content is overlaid on the background image content, i.e., when the color and/or brightness of the background image content 108 viewed on the light-transmissive display panel (102) is changed, the perceived contrast in the AR image content (106) may be changed (Paras. [0022], [0035] of the specification). The closest support, found in the specification, merely states “The compensated image data may be generated, for example by adjusting global brightness and luminance values (e.g., gray levels) of color components of the image data (e.g., the AR image content 208)” (see Para. [0054]).
With respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1370, n.4, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376, n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing MPEP § 2163.04 which provides that a "simple statement such as ‘applicant has not pointed out where the new (or amended) claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation ‘___’ in the application as filed’ may be sufficient where the claim is a new or amended claim, the support for the limitation is not apparent, and applicant has not pointed out where the limitation is supported."); see also MPEP §§ 714.02 and 2163.06 ("Applicant should ... specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure.").
MPEP 2163 I states “The specification must still be examined to assess whether an originally-filed claim has adequate support in the written disclosure and/or the drawings … A question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of determining whether an original claim is described sufficiently (see, e.g., LizardTech, Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping, Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1733 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 968, 63 USPQ2d at 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 43 USPQ2d 1398)), whether new or amended claims are supported by the description of the invention in the application as filed (see, e.g., In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 9 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Because the Remarks is completely silent regarding support in the original disclosure for the newly amended claims, and the specification does not explicitly disclose “an adjustment to a contrast, a color value, or both”, the examiner interprets this limitation as “the perceived contrast, color or both are adjusted” since it appears the claimed invention is capable of adjusting the perceived contrast or a color.
Because the new limitation is construed as meaning “wherein the compensated image data comprises an adjustment to a perceived contrast, a color, or both of the augmented reality image content”, the applicant’s arguments regarding the newly amended claims are not persuasive, since the prior art of Mathur also teaches an electronic device which is capable of adjusting the perceived contrast, color and/or both. See the figures annotated by the examiner below.
<Figure 2 of the present application, which appears to teach “perceived contrast” and “color” adjustment because the augmented reality (AR) image content is overlaid on the background image content (the examiner considers that the original disclosure does not recite the term “contrast” or “a color value” where the applicant fails to provide support).>
PNG
media_image2.png
484
612
media_image2.png
Greyscale
<Figure 20 of Mathur, teaching a perceived contrast and color adjustment, because the augmented reality (AR) image content is overlaid on the background image content>
PNG
media_image3.png
436
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 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.
Claims 12, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur (US 20230057556), of record, in view of Ato (US 20170184857), of record.
Regarding claim 12, Mathur discloses an electronic display (Figs. 1-5, 13-17 and 20; see Paras. [0082]-[0089], [0097]-[0101] and [0104] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-5, 13-17 and 20), comprising:
a display panel implemented on a light-transmissive viewing surface of the electronic device, wherein the display panel is configured to display augmented reality image content overlaid on background image content viewed through the light-transmissive viewing surface (202 implemented on a surface on 203 in Fig. 2; see Para. [0122] “Projecting virtual image light 222 onto eyepiece 202 may cause a light field (i.e., an angular representation of virtual content) to be projected onto the user's retina in a manner such that the user perceives the corresponding virtual content … The user perceives the virtual content along with world light 232 corresponding to one or more world objects 230” teaching 202 displays virtual content 202 overlaid on background image content 230);
a light-transmissive tint layer(203; Para. [0120] “a dynamic dimmer 203”) implemented on the light-transmissive viewing surface, wherein the background image content is viewed through the light-transmissive tint layer (Para. [0120] “a user may view one or more world objects 230 when looking through eyepiece 202 and dynamic dimmer 203”);
a tint driver (see Para. [0175] “Dimmer data generated by display headset processor 2942 may pass through one or more drivers which may modify or generate voltages for controlling dimmers 2903” teaching drivers for generating voltages for controlling dimmers) configured to:
have a change of a parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer based on an electrical input applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, wherein the electrical input causes the change of the parameter (see Figs. 4-5, 13-17 and 20 teaching the dimmer changes its transmissivity in each grid based on voltages applied; Paras. [0144], [0157]); and
send the change of the parameter to image processing circuitry (see Fig. 3 where 350 sends the change of the transmissivity to 314; see Paras. [0129]-[0130] teaching 350 causes projectors to output a virtual image onto eyepieces 302) communicatively coupled to the display panel, wherein the image processing circuitry is configured to generate compensated image data for the augmented reality image content based on the change of the parameter and image data of the augmented reality image content, wherein the compensated image data comprises an adjustment to a contrast, a color value, or both of the augmented reality image content (see Fig. 20 and Paras. [0160] and [0163] teaching compensated image data for the augmented reality image content, i.e., portions 2006 of 2004, is generated based on dimming in each grid, and the image brightness of the virtual content is determined to achieve a desired color value of the virtual content and/or a perceived contrast).
Mathur does not disclose predict the change of a parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Ato teaches controlling a drive voltage of the dimmer (Para. [0138]) and determining a parameter such as a light transmittance change rate in advance (Para. [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Ato, to predict the change of a parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of reducing a drive time and increasing the light transmittance as fast as possible (Ato: Para. [0138]).
Regarding claim 14, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 12 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the parameter comprises a transmittance of the light-transmissive tint layer, or a chromaticity of the light-transmissive tint layer, or both (Paras. [0144], [0157]).
Regarding claim 18, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Mathur does not disclose the tint driver configured to predict the change of the parameter based on historical data indicative of a relationship between the electrical input and the parameter.
However, Ato teaches controlling a drive voltage of the dimmer (Para. [0138]) and determining a parameter such as a light transmittance change rate in advance, obtaining a table related to a relationship between the quantity of received light change rate and the light transmittance change rate in the light-transmissive tint layer and storing data in a non-volatile memory (Paras. [0140], [0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Ato, to predict the change of a parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of reducing a drive time and increasing the light transmittance as fast as possible (Ato: Para. [0138]).
Claims 15-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Ato, and in further view of Weindorf (US 20200057317), of record.
Regarding claim 15, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Mathur does not disclose the change of the parameter is associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer inferred from an electrical current applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches providing a feedback control system for a change of a parameter associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer from an electrical current applied thereto (Paras. [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the change of the parameter is associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer inferred from an electrical current applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of accurately controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer while not experiencing temperature variations (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 16, Mathur as modified by Ato and Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 15 above.
Mathur does not explicitly disclose the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (see Fig. 5 teaching a non-zero voltage for the steady transmission rate of the dimmable element 40 between 0.5 and 1; Paras. [0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 17, Mathur as modified by Ato and Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 15 above.
Mathur does not disclose the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (see Fig. 5 teaching a non-zero voltage for the transient transmission rate of the dimmable element 40 above 1; Paras. [0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 20, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Mathur does not disclose the tint driver configured to predict the change of the parameter based on a relationship between the electrical input and the parameter, wherein the relationship is obtained by determining an absorbance of the light-transmissive tint layer with respect to the electrical input.
However, Ato teaches controlling a drive voltage of the dimmer (Para. [0138]) and determining a parameter such as a light transmittance change rate in advance, and obtaining a table related to a relationship between the quantity of received light change rate and the light transmittance change rate in the light-transmissive tint layer (Paras. [0140], [0175]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the tint driver configured to predict the change of the parameter based on a relationship between the electrical input and the parameter, wherein the relationship is obtained by determining an absorbance of the light-transmissive tint layer with respect to the electrical input, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Claims 19 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Ato, and in further view of Zad Tootaghaj (US 20230281052), of record.
Regarding claim 19, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 18 above.
Mathur does not disclose the relationship is determined by using a polynomial and a sigmoid fitting of the historical data.
However, Zad Tootaghaj teaches a machine-learning prediction for determining the relationship between different data by using a polynomial and a sigmoid kernel of the historical data (Para. [0072]; the examiner considers a kernel is a mathematical function or tool that measures similarities between different data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Zad Tootaghaj, wherein the relationship is determined by using a polynomial and a sigmoid fitting of the historical data, for the purpose of using deep learning models which can be trained to make predictions based on historical observations (Zad Tootaghaj: Para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 21, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 12 above.
Mathur does not disclose the tint driver configured to predict the change of the parameter by using a machine learning process.
However, Zad Tootaghaj teaches using a machine-learning process to predict the change of a parameter (Para. [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Zad Tootaghaj, wherein the tint driver configured to predict the change of the parameter by using a machine learning process, for the purpose of using deep learning models which can be trained to make predictions based on historical observations (Zad Tootagha: Para. [0072]).
Regarding claim 22, Mathur as modified by Ato discloses the limitations of claim 21 above.
Mathur does not disclose the machine learning process comprises a deep neural network, or a recurrent neural network, or both.
However, Zad Tootaghaj teaches a machine-learning process comprises a deep neural network (Para. [0072]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Zad Tootaghaj, wherein the machine learning process comprises a deep neural network, or a recurrent neural network, or both, for the purpose of using deep learning models which can be trained to make predictions based on historical observations (Zad Tootaghaj: Para. [0072]).
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Weindorf .
Regarding claim 23, Mathur discloses electronic display circuitry (Figs. 1-5, 13-17 and 20; see Paras. [0082]-[0089], [0097]-[0101] and [0104] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-5, 13-17 and 20), comprising:
a light-transmissive tint layer implemented on a light-transmissive viewing surface (203 on a surface between 203 and 202; Para. [0120] “a dynamic dimmer 203”), wherein a display panel (202) is implemented on the light-transmissive viewing surface and configured to display augmented reality image content overlaid on background image content viewed through the light-transmissive viewing surface (see Para. [0122] teaching 202 displays virtual content 202 overlaid on background image content 230);
an ambient light sensing circuit to determine a target transmittance of the light-transmissive tint layer (see Figs. 3-4 and Para. [0129] teaching 350 further includes ambient light sensor 334 to receive light information from and determine dimming values);
a tint control circuit configured to apply an electrical input to the light-transmissive tint layer based at least in part on the temperature and the target transmittance (see Fig. 29 and Para. [0175] teaching 2942 receives pixelated dimmer data, and the dimmer data pass through drivers to modify or generate voltages for controlling dimmers), wherein the electrical input causes a change of a parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer (Figs. 4-5, 13-17 and 20 teaching the dimmer changes its transmissivity in each grid based on voltages applied; Paras. [0144], [0157]) and
image processing circuitry (350 in Fig. 3; see Paras. [0129]-[0130] teaching 350 causes projectors to output a virtual image onto eyepieces 302) communicatively coupled to the display panel, wherein the image processing circuitry is configured to generate compensated image data for the augmented reality image content based on the change of the parameter and image data of the augmented reality image content (see Fig. 20 and Paras. [0160] and [0163] teaching compensated image data for the augmented reality image content, i.e., portions 2006 of 2004, is generated based on dimming in each grid, and the image brightness of the virtual content is determined to achieve a desired color value of the virtual content and/or a perceived contrast).
Mathur does not disclose a temperature sensing circuit to determine a temperature of a light-transmissive tint layer based on an electrical current applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a feedback control system to control temperature variations, where a change of the parameter is associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer based on an electrical current applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (Paras. [0027]-[0028]).
Since measuring temperature variations for the feedback control system needs a temperature sensor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the tint driver configured to predict the change of the parameter based on a relationship between the electrical input and the parameter, wherein the relationship is obtained by determining an absorbance of the light-transmissive tint layer with respect to the electrical input, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 24, Mathur as modified by Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 23 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the light-transmissive tint layer comprises electro-chemical materials (Para. [0144] “dimming element 503 may comprise an electrochromic device”) (the examiner considers an electrochromic device employs an electrochromic layer which comprises electrochromic materials).
Regarding claim 25, Mathur as modified by Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 23 above.
Mathur does not disclose explicitly disclose the electrical current is applied to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (see Fig. 5 teaching a non-zero voltage for the steady transmission rate of the dimmable element 40 between 0.5 and 1; Paras. [0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the electrical current is applied to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 26, Mathur as modified by Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 23 above.
Mathur does not disclose the electrical current is applied to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (see Fig. 5 teaching a non-zero voltage for the transient transmission rate of the dimmable element 40 above 1; Paras. [0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the electrical current is applied to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Claims 1-5, 7, 11 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Ato, and in further view of Chen (US 20220337799).
Regarding claim 1, Mathur discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-5, 13-17 and 20; see Paras. [0082]-[0089], [0097]-[0101] and [0104] identifying the embodiment shown in Figs. 1-5, 13-17 and 20) comprising:
a display panel implemented on a light-transmissive viewing surface of the electronic device, wherein the display panel is configured to display augmented reality image content overlaid on background image content viewed through the light-transmissive viewing surface (202 implemented on a surface on 203 in Fig. 2; see Para. [0122] “Projecting virtual image light 222 onto eyepiece 202 may cause a light field (i.e., an angular representation of virtual content) to be projected onto the user's retina in a manner such that the user perceives the corresponding virtual content … The user perceives the virtual content along with world light 232 corresponding to one or more world objects 230” teaching 202 displays virtual content 202 overlaid on background image content 230);
a light-transmissive tint layer (203; Para. [0120] “a dynamic dimmer 203”) implemented on the light-transmissive viewing surface, wherein the background image content is viewed through the light-transmissive tint layer (Para. [0120] “a user may view one or more world objects 230 when looking through eyepiece 202 and dynamic dimmer 203”);
a tint driver (see Para. [0175] “Dimmer data generated by display headset processor 2942 may pass through one or more drivers which may modify or generate voltages for controlling dimmers 2903” teaching drivers for generating voltages for controlling dimmers) configured to apply an electrical input to the light-transmissive tint layer, wherein the electrical input causes a change of a parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer (see Figs. 4-5, 13-17 and 20 teaching the dimmer changes its transmissivity in each grid based on voltages applied; Paras. [0144], [0157]); and
image processing circuitry (350 in Fig. 3; see Paras. [0129]-[0130] teaching 350 causes projectors to output a virtual image onto eyepieces 302) communicatively coupled to the display panel, wherein the image processing circuitry is configured to generate compensated image data for the augmented reality image content based on the change of the parameter and image data of the augmented reality image content, wherein the compensated image data comprises an adjustment to a contrast, a color value, or both of the augmented reality image content (see Fig. 20 and Paras. [0160] and [0163] teaching compensated image data for the augmented reality image content, i.e., portions 2006 of 2004, is generated based on dimming in each grid, and the image brightness of the virtual content is determined to achieve a desired color value of the virtual content and/or a perceived contrast).
Mathur does not explicitly disclose during a time period.
However, Ato teaches a similar electronic device (Figs. 2 and 5) and applying an electrical input to a light-transmissive tint layer during a time period (see Paras. [0194] and [0196] teaching the light transmittance of a dimming layer 700 is controlled by a voltage applied during a predetermined amount of time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Ato, to apply an electrical input to a light-transmissive tint layer during a time period, for the purpose of controlling the light transmittance of the light-transmissive tint layer during a predetermined time period (Ato: Para. [0020]).
Mathur further fails to disclose generate compensated image data via a display pipeline.
However, Chen teaches generating compensated image data via a display pipeline (Para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Chen, to generate compensated image data via a display pipeline, for the purpose of processing image data to display a corresponding image (Chen: Para. [0026]).
Regarding claim 2, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the light-transmissive tint layer comprises electro-chemical materials (Para. [0144] “dimming element 503 may comprise an electrochromic device”) (the examiner considers an electrochromic device employs an electrochromic layer which comprises electrochromic materials).
Regarding claim 3, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 2 above.
Mathur does not explicitly disclose the electro-chemical materials comprise an anodic specie and a cathodic specie.
However, Ato teaches electro-chemical materials comprise an anodic specie and a cathodic specie (see Paras. [0128] and [0190] teaching the dimmer 700 comprises electro-chemical materials and electrodes 702 and 704).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Ato, wherein the electro-chemical materials comprise an anodic specie and a cathodic specie, for the purpose of driving the light-transmissive tint layer (Ato: Para. [0194]).
Regarding claim 4, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the electrical input comprises a voltage (Para. [0175]).
Regarding claim 5, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 4 above.
Mathur does not explicitly disclose the voltage comprises a first voltage during a first time period of the time period and a second voltage during a second time period of the time period.
However, Ato teaches a first time period and a second time period (see Paras. [0205]-[0211] teaching at least the first stage through the seventh stage of different period based on different quantities of received light) and varying a voltage based on each stage (see Paras. [0138] and [0212] teaching controlling a drive voltage of the dimmer to increase the light transmittance based on measurement values).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Ato, wherein the voltage comprises a first voltage during a first time period of the time period and a second voltage during a second time period of the time period, for the purpose of controlling a drive voltage based on the measurement result of the light received (Ato: Para. [0138]).
Regarding claim 7, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the parameter comprises a transmittance of the light-transmissive tint layer, or a chromaticity of the light-transmissive tint layer, or both (Paras. [0144], [0157]).
Regarding claim 11, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above, and Mathur further discloses wherein the compensated image data is generated by modifying gray levels of color components of the image data of the augmented reality image content based on the change of the parameter of the light-transmissive tint layer (Paras. [0131], [0144], [0157]).
Regarding claim 27, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mathur does not explicitly disclose the parameter comprises a transmittance of the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Ato teaches controlling a drive voltage of the dimmer (Para. [0138]) and determining a parameter such as a light transmittance change rate (Para. [0140]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Ato, wherein the parameter comprises a transmittance of the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of reducing a drive time and increasing the light transmittance (Ato: Para. [0138]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathur in view of Ato and Chen, and in further view of Weindorf.
Regarding claim 8, Mathur as modified by Ato and Chen discloses the limitations of claim 1 above.
Mathur does not disclose the change of the parameter is associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer inferred from an electrical current applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches providing a feedback control system for a change of a parameter associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer from an electrical current applied thereto (Paras. [0027]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the change of the parameter is associated with a temperature of the light-transmissive tint layer inferred from an electrical current applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of accurately controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer while not experiencing temperature variations (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 9, Mathur as modified by Ato, Chen and Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 8 above.
Mathur does not disclose explicitly disclose the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (see Fig. 5 teaching a non-zero voltage for the steady transmission rate of the dimmable element 40 between 0.5 and 1; Paras. [0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a steady state of the light-transmissive tint layer with a non-zero voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Mathur as modified by Ato, Chen and Weindorf discloses the limitations of claim 8 above.
Mathur does not disclose the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer.
However, Weindorf teaches a tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer (see Fig. 5 teaching a non-zero voltage for the transient transmission rate of the dimmable element 40 above 1; Paras. [0027], [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electronic device as disclosed by Mathur with the teachings of Weindorf, wherein the tint driver is configured to apply the electrical current to the light-transmissive tint layer during a transient state of the light-transmissive tint layer with an over-drive voltage applied to the light-transmissive tint layer, for the purpose of controlling the transmission rate of the light-transmissive tint layer (Weindorf: Para. [0027]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN Y JUNG whose telephone number is (469)295-9076. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Michael H Caley can be reached on (571)272-2286. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN Y JUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights