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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner concedes that the citation from Jing et al (US 20220163868 A1, hereinafter, "Jing"), paragraph [0034] does not adequately teach the limitation of Claim 1 as Applicant asserts. However, Jing, Abstract, ln. 2-4 teaches, “determining a refresh time of a to-be-compensated screen; determining an exposure time as N times the refresh time, wherein N is a positive integer.” This teaches the limitation generate, based on the determined refresh rate, a first control signal to drive the pixel of the display such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device as claimed in Claim 1. It also teaches the limitation generating, based on the determined refresh rate, a first control signal for driving the pixel of the display such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device, wherein the imaging device is for imaging the display as claimed in Claim 17. All limitations of all claims submitted can still be rejected using the prior art of record. As such, this rejection will be made final as noted in the first paragraph of the conclusion of this Office Action. Claims 3 & 19 have been canceled. Accordingly, Claims 1-2, 4-18, & 20 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jing.
Regarding Claim 1, Jing teaches an information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to: determine a refresh rate of a display (Jing, Step S1, [0031], ln. 1, "In step S1, the refresh time of the to-be-compensated screen is determined.") configured such that a light emission cycle of a pixel of the display corresponds to an exposure time of an imaging device, wherein the imaging device is configured to image the display (Jing, Step S3, [0039], "In step S3, the exposure time is sent to the camera of the compensation device, such that the camera may shoot the to-be-compensated screen based on the exposure time."); generate, based on the determined refresh rate, a first control signal to drive the pixel of the display such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device (Jing, Abstract, ln. 2-4, “determining a refresh time of a to-be-compensated screen; determining an exposure time as N times the refresh time, wherein N is a positive integer.”); and output the first control signal (Jing, [0037], ln. 1-2, "In practice, the TE signal is equivalent to a synchronization signal").
Regarding Claim 2, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Jing teaches the circuitry is further configured to generate the first control signal to drive the pixel of the display such that the exposure time becomes an integral multiple of the light emission cycle of the display (Jing, [0040], ln. 6-8, "Therefore, in the embodiments, the exposure time is adjusted to N times the refresh time of the to-be-compensated screen, wherein N is a positive integer.").
Regarding Claim 17, Jing teaches an information processing method. comprising: determining a refresh rate of a display configured such that a light emission cycle of a pixel of the display corresponds to an exposure time of an imaging device (Jing, Step S3, [0039], "In step S3, the exposure time is sent to the camera of the compensation device, such that the camera may shoot the to-be-compensated screen based on the exposure time."); generating, based on the determined refresh rate, a first control signal for driving the pixel of the display such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device, wherein the imaging device is for imaging the display (Jing, Abstract, ln. 2-4, “determining a refresh time of a to-be-compensated screen; determining an exposure time as N times the refresh time, wherein N is a positive integer.”); and outputting the first control signal (Jing, [0037], ln. 1-2, "In practice, the TE signal is equivalent to a synchronization signal").
Regarding Claim 18, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 17 as noted above. Jing teaches generating the first control signal for driving the pixel of the display such that the exposure time becomes an integral multiple of the light emission cycle of the display (Jing, [0040], ln. 6-8, "Therefore, in the embodiments, the exposure time is adjusted to N times the refresh time of the to-be-compensated screen, wherein N is a positive integer.").
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Fujiwara (US 20200351428 A1, hereinafter, "Fujiwara").
Regarding Claim 4, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Fujiwara teaches a first acquisition unit configured to acquire the exposure time of the imaging device (Fujiwara, Fig. 10, [0101], ln. 3-4, "…the exposure time setting unit 101 acquires an exposure time SS2_n with the second exposure time determination method [step S26]."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Fujiwara with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to use an exposure unit to acquire an exposure time.
Claims 5 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Sugiyama et al (WO 2018164105 A1, hereinafter, "Sugiyama").
Regarding Claim 5, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Sugiyama teaches an input unit configured to acquire that acquires a first video signal that is displayed on the display (Sugiyama, Fig. 1, pg. 2, para. 6, ln. 6-7, "The controller 20 and the driver 30 drive the display panel 10 based on the video signal Din and the synchronization signal Tin input from the outside."), wherein the display includes a plurality of display units (Sugiyama, Fig. 15, pg. 9, para. 6, ln. 1-2, "…the display panel 10 may be a tiling display including a plurality of cells 10B…"); a division unit configured to divide the first video signal into a plurality of second video signals that is displayed on each display unit of the plurality of display units of the display (Sugiyama Fig. 15, pg. 9, para. 6, ln. 5-6, "…the controller 20 controls each driver 30 on the assumption that the plurality of cells 10B are one display panel."); and an output unit configured to output a signal and the plurality of second video signals to the each display unit, wherein the signal indicates the refresh rate (Sugiyama Fig. 15, pg. 9, para. 7, ln. 1-2, "the controller 20 and the driver 30 simultaneously drive each cell 10B line-sequentially while shooting the display panel 10…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sugiyama with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to simultaneously drive each cell line-sequentially while shooting a display panel.
Regarding Claim 15, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Sugiyama teaches the display further includes a plurality of pixels of light emitting diodes (LEDs) arranged in a matrix, and the plurality of pixels includes the pixel of the display (Sugiyama, pg. 2, para 8, ln. 1-2, "The display panel 10 has a plurality of pixels 11 arranged in a matrix over the entire pixel area of the display panel 10."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sugiyama with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to arrange a plurality of pixels in a matrix over a display panel.
Regarding Claim 16, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Sugiyama teaches the imaging device is further configured to image based on a rolling shutter system (Sugiyama, Fig. 6-8, pg. 6, para. 4, ln. 1, "…the exposure of the camera is a rolling shutter system."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sugiyama with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to use a rolling shutter system.
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Sugiyama and Von Braun (WO 2020053416 A1, hereinafter, "Von Braun").
Regarding Claim 6, Jing and Sugiyama teach the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Von Braun teaches the circuitry is on a first device, the input unit, the division unit, and the output unit are on a second device different from the first device, and the circuitry is further configured to output the first control signal to the second device to drive the pixel of the display (Von Braun, Fig. 4, ln. 22-24, "Fig. 4 shows an alternative embodiment for implementing the method of the present invention where a dedicated processing unit 56 having a housing 57 is used to receive the master-clock signal via line 50 and the camera-actuation signal via line 52 from a dedicated remote control 51."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Von Braun with those of Jing and Sugiyama because it is widely known in the art to use one device to control the output signal of a second device that drives a pixel display.
Regarding Claim 7, Jing and Sugiyama teach the limitations of dependent Claim 5 as noted above. Von Braun teaches the circuitry, the input unit, the division unit, and the output unit are on a same device, and the circuitry is further configured to output the first control signal to the each display unit to drive the pixel of the display (Von Braun, Fig. 5, pg. 10, para. 4, ln. 32-35, "Fig. 5 schematically describes a further embodiment of the present invention where the internal camera actuator 61 is used to trigger the camera-actuation signal. Accordingly, the input unit 53 of digital photography camera P has only to be adapted to receive the master-clock signal M via line 50 at input 60."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Von Braun with those of Jing and Sugiyama because it is widely known in the art to incorporate multiple units into a single device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Zhang (US 20190005862 A1, hereinafter, "Zhang").
Regarding Claim 8, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Zhang teaches the pixel of the display is configured to be driven based on the determined refresh rate (Zhang, [0028], ln. 1-3, "an output module, configured to output a first control signal with a frequency being the target frame rate to a gate driving circuit, to cause the gate driving circuit to scan pixel units of the display panel according to the target frame rate."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to drive a display panel according to a target frame rate.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Sugiyama and Kim et al (US 20150312461 A1, hereinafter, "Kim").
Regarding Claim 9, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Sugiyama teaches the imaging device that includes a pixel configured to accumulate electric charge corresponding to incident light (Sugiyama, Fig. 2, pg. 2, last paragraph, ln. 1, "FIG. 2 shows an example of the circuit configuration of each pixel 11. "). Sugiyama does not teach the circuitry is further configured to: set the exposure time of the imaging device such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device; generate, based on the set exposure time, a second control signal to drive the pixel of the imaging device, and output the second control signal to the imaging device to drive the pixel of the imaging device. However, Jing teaches the circuitry is further configured to: set the exposure time of the imaging device such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device (Jing, Step S2, [0038], ln. 1, "In step S2, the exposure time is determined as N times the refresh time."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Jing with those of Sugiyama because it is widely known in the art for an exposure time to correspond to a refresh time, as well as for pixels to accumulate a charge based on incident light. Kim teaches generate, based on the set exposure time, a second control signal to drive the pixel of the imaging device, and output the second control signal to the imaging device to drive the pixel of the imaging device (Kim, Fig. 13, [0179], ln. 2-8, "…a second control signal TA2 may control a transfer gate TXa2 connected to the photoelectric conversion element GrPD2…control signals TA1 to TA4 output from the exposure time control circuit, e.g., the row driver 520 of FIG. 13, may independently control exposure time of each of two photoelectric conversion elements included in each of the pixels disposed in a first row."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Jing and Sugiyama because it is widely known in the art to independently control exposure time of each of two photoelectric elements of an imaging device.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Sugiyama, Kim, and Zhang.
Regarding Claim 10, Jing, Sugiyama, and Kim teach the limitations of Claim 9 as noted above. Zhang teaches a second acquisition unit configured to acquire the refresh rate of the display (Zhang, [0030] ln. 1, "…an adjusting submodule, configured to acquire a preset pixel refresh rate Fc." Examiner's note: neither the spec nor the drawings denote a "second" acquisition unit of any kind, so the prior art reference does not either.). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with those of Jing, Sugiyama, and Kim because it is widely known in the art to use a module to acquire a refresh rate.
Regarding Claim 11, Jing, Sugiyama, and Kim teach the limitations of Claim 9 as noted above. Zhang teaches the circuitry and the imaging device are on a same device (Zhang, Fig. 4A, [0116], ln. 1-4, "In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the acquiring module, the determining module, the adjusting module (including the acquiring submodule, the calculating submodule and the adjusting submodule) and/or the output module include codes and programs stored in the memory; and the processor may execute the codes and programs to achieve some or all functions as mentioned above."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with those of Jing, Sugiyama, and Kim because it is widely known in the art to incorporate multiple modules on the same device.
Regarding Claim 12, Jing, Sugiyama, and Kim teach the limitations of Claim 9 as noted above. Zhang teaches the circuitry and the imaging device are on different devices (Zhang, Fig. 4A, [0117], ln. 1-4, "In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the acquiring module, the determining module, the adjusting module (including the acquiring submodule, the calculating submodule and the adjusting submodule) and/or the output module may be specialized hardware devices and are used for implementing some or all functions as mentioned above."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Zhang with those of Jing, Sugiyama, and Kim because it is widely known in the art to have circuitry on a separate device from a camera.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Von Braun.
Regarding Claim 13, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Von Braun teaches an exposure start time of the imaging device is synchronized with a display start time of the display (Von Braun, pg. 2, para. 5, ln. 20-22, "A camera is used to record a scene of the event including the physical display such as a signboard and a control system is used to synchronize the camera and the signboard."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Von Braun with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to synchronize a camera with a display.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Sugiyama and Onuma (US 20200412898 A1, hereinafter, "Onuma").
Regarding Claim 14, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Sugiyama teaches the display is configured to emit light by a passive matrix drive system (Sugiyama, pg. 2, para 8, ln. 1-2, "The display panel 10 has a plurality of pixels 11 arranged in a matrix over the entire pixel area of the display panel 10."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Sugiyama with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to arrange pixels in a matrix. Sugiyama does not teach a passive matrix. However, Onuma, [0020], ln. 4-5 teaches a passive matrix: "The display device 20 of the present embodiment is an organic electro-luminescence (EL) display device in which a passive matrix driving system is employed."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Onuma with those of Jing and Sugiyama because it is widely known in the art to use a passive matrix.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jing in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 20, Jing teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 18 as noted above. Jing teaches setting the exposure time of the imaging device such that the light emission cycle of the display corresponds to the exposure time of the imaging device (Jing, Step S3, [0039], "In step S3, the exposure time is sent to the camera of the compensation device, such that the camera may shoot the to-be-compensated screen based on the exposure time."). Jing does not teach generating, based on the set exposure time, a second control signal for driving a pixel of the imaging device, and outputting the second control signal. However, Kim teaches generating, based on the set exposure time, a second control signal for driving a pixel of the imaging device, and outputting the second control signal (Kim, Fig. 13, [0179], ln. 2-8, "…a second control signal TA2 may control a transfer gate TXa2 connected to the photoelectric conversion element GrPD2…control signals TA1 to TA4 output from the exposure time control circuit, e.g., the row driver 520 of FIG. 13, may independently control exposure time of each of two photoelectric conversion elements included in each of the pixels disposed in a first row."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kim with those of Jing because it is widely known in the art to drive multiple pixels based on exposure times.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the phrase, “…plurality of second video signals to the each display unit…” either the word “the” or the word “each” needs to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the phrase, “…output the first control signal to the each display unit to drive the pixel of the display,” either the word “the” or the word “each” needs to be removed. Appropriate correction is required.
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 STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
