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 .
Status of Claims
This is in response to applicant’s amendment/response file on 10 March 2026, which has been entered and made of record. No Claim has been added or cancelled. Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.5-9, filed on 10 March 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection to Claim 1-15 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claim 1/9/12 and reference of Lonkar (US 2011/0249015 A1), Applicant argues Lonkar fails to teach or suggest at least the above- emphasized elements of Claim 1. In particular, Claim 1, as amended, recites "cause the first color profile and the second color profile to install on the computing device" (p.6 lines 8-10). More specifically Applicant quoted para [0028] of Lonkar and concludes Lonkar teaches a singular color profile that is applied to multiple devices. Accordingly, Lonkar fails to teach a first and second color profile that is applied to a computing device. Instead, Lonkar applies one color profile to a computing device regardless of a second color profile. Therefore, Lonkar fails to teach or suggest cause the first color profile and the second color profile to install on the computing device, as specified by Claim 1 (p.6 last para). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lonkar does disclose, as applicant argues, In one or more embodiments, a user may be allowed to select multiple input/output devices (e.g., devices D1, D2, D3, and D4) to apply a common color profile. However in the same para [0028], Lonkar also discloses In one or more embodiments the user may also be allowed to group one or more output devices into one or more groups, and may be allowed to apply different color profiles to each of the groups ([0028]). Lonkar discloses different color profiles can be applied to different display in multiple places (see[0037]: Another secondary color profile may be determined to apply to the multimedia content on another secondary display. The secondary color profile may be selected to apply to the secondary device. Another secondary color profile may be selected to apply to another secondary device. The database of the secondary color profile and another secondary color profile may be generated. [0038]: The multimedia content may be displayed with another secondary color profile on another secondary display and the secondary color profile, simultaneously. [0043]: In one or more embodiments, an EDID of another secondary display may be determined based on the type of connector. In one or more embodiments, another secondary color profile may be determined to apply to image on the another secondary display. In one or more embodiments, the image with the another secondary color profile may be displayed on the another secondary display simultaneously as with the image on the secondary display such that the image on the another secondary display is similar at least in color to the image in the secondary display). Therefore Applicant’s first argument that only a single color profile is applied to all display is not persuasive.
Secondly, Applicant cites para [0002] of Lonkar and asserts that Lonkar teaches away from the claimed subject matter. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lonkar in [0002] points out obtaining and applying color profiles of the devices with the multimedia content may be time consuming and tedious. However it does not necessarily requiring that the only way to reduce the time consuming and tedious is to apply only one single color profile to all displays. In [0028], Lonkar suggests grouping multiple displays to different groups therefore reducing the number of color profiles by comparing the secondary color profile of the secondary display to the primary color profile of the primary display ([0006]). Therefore Applicant’s first argument that only a single color profile is applied to all display is not persuasive.
Lastly, Applicant asserts that when alleging the combination described above, the Office is making a blanket statement that because a computer program can be executed on multiple processors, this is enough teaching for a person of ordinary skill to alter the database. Applicant respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in the disclosure of Lonkar to suggest moving the color profile database to an external server. Additionally, the disclosure of Lonkar makes no mention of what is included in the "computer program." It is unclear whether the color profile database of Lonkar is included in the computer program or if the color profile database of Lonkar would be transferred to a server. Therefore, there is nothing to teach or suggest that one would be motivated to move the color profile database to a server, as specified by Claim 1 (p.7 last para). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lankar discloses The computer program is not limited to specific embodiments discussed above, and may, for example, be implemented in an operating system, an application program, a foreground or background process, a driver, a network stack or any combination thereof. The computer program may be executed on a single computer processor or multiple computer processors ([0045]). A computer processor has its own instructions, hardware setup including memory wherein program instructions and database used by the processor and network interface. In order to run a computer program in multiple processors, a communication is needed to set up. For the computer to provide data, it can be considered as a server and therefore the computer wherein the color profiles database is stored can be interpreted as a server. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a task is performed in server/client format has already been a common practice in the form of network. It only requires a routine skilled for a PHOSITA to design a server/client multiple computer system wherein one computer with large memory size to stores color profiles and the other computer with computing processing power to compare color effect for different color profile, select color profile for each external display and drive the external displays with selected color profiles for cost/effect consideration. Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to case the first color profile and the second color profile to install on the computing device.
Applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims are based on their dependency on Claim 1/9/12, therefore the Examiner maintains 103 rejection.
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, 5-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonkar (US 2011/0249015 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Lonkar discloses a computing device (Fig.1 and [0021]: FIG. 1 is a schematic view of an example scenario of color management for one or more output devices through a GPU 102, in accordance with one or more embodiments), comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
310
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a first video interface ([0024]: The type of connector may be, for example, a video graphics array, a digital visual interface, a high-definition multimedia interface, a display port, a separate video (s-video), a composite video, or a component video) for a first monitor; a second video interface for a second monitor (Fig.1 and Fig.2: notice the connector module 202 in Fig.2); and
PNG
media_image2.png
438
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
a processor (Color Profile module 206 in Fig.2) to:
obtain a first monitor identification from the first monitor; obtain a second monitor identification from the second monitor ([0024]: In one or more embodiments, the GPU may also include an extended display identification data (EDID) module. The EDID module may be configured to determine the EDID of the secondary display based on the type of the connector determined by the connector module. If the type of the connector is for example, one of a video graphics array, a digital visual interface, a high-definition multimedia interface, or a display port, then the EDID module may be able to determine the EDID of secondary display);
send the first monitor identification and the second monitor identification to a color profile database (Fig.2: Color profile database 210);
receive a first color profile and a second color profile from the color profile database ([0025]: The color profile module 206 may be configured to query a color profile database 210 of a GPU driver 208 to select the secondary color profile for the multimedia content from among one or more secondary color profiles in the color profile database 210); and
cause the first color profile and the second color profile to install on the computing device (Fig.4 and 0028]: FIG. 4 is a schematic view illustrating bulk application of color profiles through a user interface 450 coupled to a GPU 102, in accordance with one or more embodiments. In one or more embodiments, a user may be allowed to select multiple input/output devices (e.g., devices D1, D2, D3, and D4) to apply a common color profile. In one or more embodiments the user may also be allowed to group one or more output devices into one or more groups, and may be allowed to apply different color profiles to each of the groups. As illustrated in the user interface 450 of FIG. 4, the devices D1, D2, and D3 may be selected and a color profile may be selected from a drop down menu (e.g., "apply device color profile") to apply the selected color profile to the selected devices D1, D2, and D3, simultaneously in real time).
PNG
media_image3.png
386
556
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lonkar teaches sending the first/second monitor identification to a color profile database and receive the first/second color profile from the color profile database instead of a color profile server.
A computer processor has its own instructions, hardware setup including memory wherein program instructions and database used by the processor and network interface. In order to run a computer program in multiple processors, a communication is needed to set up. For the computer to provide data, it can be considered as a server and therefore the computer wherein the color profiles database is stored can be interpreted as a server. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, a task is performed in server/client format has already been a common practice in the form of network. It only requires a routine skilled for a PHOSITA to design a server/client multiple computer system wherein one computer with large memory size to stores color profiles and the other computer with computing processing power to compare color effect for different color profile, select color profile for each external display and drive the external displays with selected color profiles for cost/effect consideration. Therefore it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dedicated color profile server in order to support multiple GPUs like GPU 102 coupled to more than one external monitors shown in Fig.1.
Regarding Claim 2, Lonkar discloses wherein the first color profile and the second color profile are international color consortium (ICC) profiles (0025]: The GPU 102 may determine a secondary color profile for a multimedia content (e.g., multimedia content 104) to be displayed on the secondary display 108 based on the determined EDID. In one or more embodiments, the GPU may include a color profile module 206 configured to determine the secondary color profile to apply to the multimedia content on the secondary display 108. The secondary color profile may be a device dependent profile or a device independent profile. The device independent profile may be a profile based on an international color standard (e.g., International Color Consortium®)).
Regarding Claim 3, Lonkar further teaches or suggests wherein the first monitor identification comprises a first display panel identification and the second monitor identification comprises a second display panel identification (Fig.2 and [0022]: In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may also be configured to remove one or more discrepancies between the secondary display 1081 and another secondary display 108N. In order to remove the discrepancies, the GPU 102 may determine a type of connector of the secondary display 1081 and then may determine an extended display identification data (EDID) of the secondary display 1081 based on the type of the connector. Notice Lonkar teaches more than one external displays can be connected to the GPU 102 as shown in Fig.1).
Regarding Claim 5, Lonkar teaches or suggests wherein the processor is to automatically synchronize color profiles with the color profile server ([0022]: In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may also be configured to remove one or more discrepancies between the secondary display 1081 and another secondary display 108N. In order to remove the discrepancies, the GPU 102 may determine a type of connector of the secondary display 1081 and then may determine an extended display identification data (EDID) of the secondary display 1081 based on the type of the connector. The GPU 102 may determine a secondary color profile to apply to the multimedia content based on the determined EDID in real time).
Regarding Claim 6, Lonkar teaches or suggests wherein the processor is to detect a third monitor, and then to automatically: obtain a third monitor identification from the third monitor; send the first monitor identification, the second monitor identification, and the third monitor identification to the color profile server; receive a third color profile, a fourth color profile, and a fifth color profile from the color profile server based on a combination of panels identifiable using the first monitor identification, the second monitor identification and the third monitor identification; and cause the third color profile, the fourth color profile, and the fifth color profile to install on the computing device (Fig.1 and [0022]: notice the GPU 102 can support 1-N displays).
Regarding Claim 7, Lonkar teaches or suggests wherein causing the first color profile and the second color profile to install on the computing device comprises causing processing pipelines of the first monitor and the second monitor to use resources derived from the first color profile and the second color profile ([0023]: In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may apply the selected secondary color profile to the multimedia content in the secondary display 1081 in real time. Further, the GPU 102 may match the secondary color profile with a primary color profile of the multimedia content in the primary display 106 so as to reduce the color discrepancy and may display the multimedia content with the secondary color profile on the secondary display 108 to the second user 114. Similarly the GPU 102 may be configured to reduce color discrepancy between the multimedia content in the secondary display 1081 and another secondary display 108N).
Regarding Claim 8, Lonkar teaches or suggests wherein the processor is to automatically synchronize color profiles when a new monitor is detected (Fig.2: through EDID and [0022]).
Regarding Claim 9, Lonkar discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a network interface ([0045]: The computer program is not limited to specific embodiments discussed above, and may, for example, be implemented in an operating system, an application program, a foreground or background process, a driver, a network stack or any combination thereof. The computer program may be executed on a single computer processor or multiple computer processors. Lonkar does not explicitly recite including a network interface. However a skilled person would have known to include a network interface in order to make the above cited network stack or multiple computer processors to communicate with each other in order to perform its designed functions); and
a processor (Fig.6: computer 504) to:
receive a monitor combination via the network interface ([0032]: FIG. 6 is a schematic view of a system 600 of color management for one or more output devices through a GPU 102, in accordance with one or more embodiments. In one or more embodiments, the system may include a computer 504 coupled to the GPU 102. The monitor of the computer 504 may constitute a primary display 106 and the computer 504 may be coupled to a secondary display 108. The secondary display 108 may be configured to display a preview of a multimedia content. The GPU 102 may be operatively coupled to the secondary display 108 through a connector (e.g., an interface). In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may be configured to determine the type of connector of the secondary display 108. The type of connector may include but is not limited to, a video graphics array, a digital visual interface, a high-definition multimedia interface, a display port, a separate video (s-video), a composite video, or a component video. In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may also be configured to determine an EDID data of the secondary display based on the type of the connector);
PNG
media_image4.png
398
531
media_image4.png
Greyscale
obtain color profiles based on the monitor combination (0032]: The GPU 102 may be operatively coupled to the secondary display 108 through a connector (e.g., an interface). In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may be configured to determine the type of connector of the secondary display 108. Fig.7: step 708 and [0035] FIG. 7 shows a process flow diagram detailing the operations involved in a method of color management for output devices via graphics processing unit (GPU), in accordance with one or more embodiments. In one or more embodiments, operation 708 may involve querying a database of the secondary color profile to determine the secondary color profile of the multimedia content); and
PNG
media_image5.png
519
514
media_image5.png
Greyscale
send the color profiles to a remote (Note Lonkar does not explicitly recite the print device 502, the secondary display 106or output device 604 is a remote computing device. However Lonkar discloses The computer program is not limited to specific embodiments discussed above, and may, for example, be implemented in an operating system, an application program, a foreground or background process, a driver, a network stack or any combination thereof. The computer program may be executed on a single computer processor or multiple computer processors, see [0045]. It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA that one of the print device, secondary display or output device could be a remote computing device since Lonkar teaches the invention could be executed on multiple computer processors) computing device using the network interface ([0034]: The GPU may also be configured to apply the secondary color profile to the multimedia content of the secondary display 108 such that the multimedia content on the secondary display 108 matches with the multimedia content on a primary display with the primary color profile. In one or more embodiments, the printer device 502 may be associated with the output device 604. In one or more embodiments, the output devices (e.g., a print device 502) may be configured to reproduce the multimedia content into a tangible form with the secondary color profile).
Regarding Claim 10, Lonkar teaches or suggests wherein the monitor combination comprises a first display panel identification and a second display panel identification ([0007]: The method furthermore includes determining an extended display identification data of the secondary display based on the type of the connector. The method furthermore includes selecting the secondary color profile from a database based on the extended display identification data).
Regarding Claim 12, Lonkar discloses a method, comprising:
using a first set of color profiles for display devices connected to a computing device (Fig.8: step 802 or 804);
PNG
media_image6.png
714
489
media_image6.png
Greyscale
sending a panel combination of the display devices to a database of a driver the database of the driver ([0040]: In one or more embodiments, operation 806 may involve determining, through a processor (e.g., CPU, GPU), a secondary color profile. The secondary color profile may be determined by querying the database of a driver of the GPU)
activating the second set of color profiles on the computing device (Fig.8: step 816: replace the default color profile of the secondary display with the secondary color profile).
Lonkar teaches sending the first/second monitor identification to a color profile database and receive the first/second color profile from the color profile database instead of a remote computer view a computer network. However it would only require a skilled person a routine skill to separate the color profile database from the GPU and use a remote computer instead since Lonkar teaches A computer program embodying the aspects of the exemplary embodiments may be loaded to the system. The computer program is not limited to specific embodiments discussed above, and may, for example, be implemented in an operating system, an application program, a foreground or background process, a driver, a network stack or any combination thereof. The computer program may be executed on a single computer processor or multiple computer processors ([0045]). Therefore it would have been obvious for a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a dedicated color profile server in order to support multiple GPUs coupled to more than one displays like GPU 102 shown in Fig.1.
Regarding Claim 13, Lonkar disclsoes wherein the panel combination comprises two panel identifiers (Fig.1: notice 1-N displays).
Regarding Claim 14, Lonkar teaches or suggests wherein the panel combination comprises three panel identifier (Fig.1: notice 1-N displays).
Regarding Claim 15, Lonkar further teaches or suggests further comprising automatically synchronizing a third set of color profiles ([0022]: In one or more embodiments, the GPU 102 may also be configured to remove one or more discrepancies between the secondary display 1081 and another secondary display 108N. In order to remove the discrepancies, the GPU 102 may determine a type of connector of the secondary display 1081 and then may determine an extended display identification data (EDID) of the secondary display 1081 based on the type of the connector. The GPU 102 may determine a secondary color profile to apply to the multimedia content based on the determined EDID in real time).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonkar (US 2011/0249015 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Herbert et al. (US 2005/0099431 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Lonkar fails to disclose wherein the first color profile and the second color profile are received based on a calibration operation between a first target profile and a second target color profile.
However Herbert discloses obtain an ICC color profile from calibration operation (Abstract: This invention is directed to a system and method for creating characterization information from a first display device that can be transmitted and used by a second display device. Computer readable instructions embodied in a computer readable medium calibrate a first display device, create an ICC color profile from said calibration information, storing the ICC color profile and sending the ICC color profile to a second display device for it to use. The calibration or characterization information can also be associated with an image file and sent to a second location for display) had been known and already practiced in the field of multiple monitors supporting system ([0022]: Another component of the characterization procedure is the adjustment of the luminance or brightness level. Brightness level is the quality of being luminous, that is emitting light and its level influences color perception so that observations made on multiple monitors must be adjusted to the same luminance level to provide consistent evaluations). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Herbert into that of Lonkar and to include the limitation of wherein the first color profile and the second color profile are received based on a calibration operation between a first target profile and a second target color profile in order to provide consistent observations made on multiple monitors as suggested by Herbert cited above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lonkar (US 2011/0249015 A1) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Webb et al. (US 2006/0195369 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Lonkar further teaches or suggests wherein obtaining color profiles based on the monitor combination comprises accessing a color database of multiple panel combination records (Fig.2 and[0007]: The method furthermore includes selecting the secondary color profile from a database based on the extended display identification data. [0008]: The system furthermore includes a driver to maintain a database of the primary color profile and the secondary color profile).
But Lonkar fails to disclose wherein each record includes calibrated color profiles.
However Webb teaches Calibration is the process of generating a color profile which is used by an application (e.g., the color coordination system) to compute appropriate RGB values for a specific environment (e.g. display monitor, printer, etc.). Unless the color profile changes (as a result of re-calibration), RGB values can be pre-computed and stored in the database for each monitor/paint color combination to prevent the need to evaluate RGB values in real-time. According to one embodiment of the invention, such conversion values (e.g., RGB values) are generated for each color in the database and for each display and/or printing device that may be attached to a kiosk ([0091]). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Webb into that of Lonkar and to include the limitation of wherein each record includes calibrated color profiles in order to support displays with different color profiles efficiently.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 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