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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final rejection on 01/27/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Claims 3 and 19 have been canceled. Accordingly, Claims 1, 2, 4-18, & 20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 17, & 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20190005862 A1, hereinafter, "Zhang") in view of Kikuchi (DE 112018001162 T5, hereinafter, "Kikuchi").
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang teaches an information processing system, comprising: circuitry configured to: determine a refresh rate of a display (Zhang, [0030] ln. 1, "…an adjusting submodule, configured to acquire a preset pixel refresh rate Fc.") 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 (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."); and output the first control signal (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."). Zhang does not teach 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. However, Kikuchi teaches 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 (Kikuchi pg. 8, para. 3, ln. 1-3, "It is assumed that the minimum exposure time ΔTEmin of the CMOS sensor is four times as long as the light emission cycle ΔTe of the display panel 10 or longer, and that the exposure sliding period ΔTd is twice as long as the light emission period ΔTe or shorter.") 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 Kikuchi with those of Zhang because it is well known in the art for an exposure time of an imaging device to correspond to a light emission cycle of a pixel.
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang and Kikuchi teach the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Kikuchi 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 (Kikuchi pg. 8, para. 3, ln. 1-3, "It is assumed that the minimum exposure time ΔTEmin of the CMOS sensor is four times as long as the light emission cycle ΔTe of the display panel 10 or longer, and that the exposure sliding period ΔTd is twice as long as the light emission period ΔTe or shorter.").
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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.").
Regarding Claim 17, Kikuchi 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 (Kikuchi pg. 8, para. 3, ln. 1-3, "It is assumed that the minimum exposure time ΔTEmin of the CMOS sensor is four times as long as the light emission cycle ΔTe of the display panel 10 or longer, and that the exposure sliding period ΔTd is twice as long as the light emission period ΔTe or shorter."). Kikuchi does not teach 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; and outputting the first control signal. However, Zhang teaches 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 (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."); and outputting the first control signal (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 Kikuchi because it is well known in the art for a light emission cycle of a display to correspond to the exposure time of an imaging device and output a control signal.
Regarding Claim 18, Kikuchi and Zhang teach the limitations of Claim 17 as noted above. Kikuchi 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 (Kikuchi pg. 8, para. 3, ln. 1-3, "It is assumed that the minimum exposure time ΔTEmin of the CMOS sensor is four times as long as the light emission cycle ΔTe of the display panel 10 or longer, and that the exposure sliding period ΔTd is twice as long as the light emission period ΔTe or shorter.").
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kikuchi and Fujiwara (US 20200351428 A1, hereinafter, "Fujiwara").
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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 Zhang and Kikuchi because it is well known in the art to utilize an acquisition unit for determining the exposure time of an imaging device.
Claims 5, 15, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kikuchi and Sugiyama et al (WO 2018164105 A1, hereinafter, "Sugiyama").
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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 Zhang and Kikuchi because it is well known in the art to display a video signal on a display comprising a plurality of display cells and to divide a first video signal into a plurality of second video signals that are each displayed on the display units.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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 Zhang and Kikuchi because it is well known in the art to include a plurality of LED pixels arranged in a matrix which include the pixel of the display.
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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 Zhang and Kikuchi because it is well known in the art to configure to image based on a rolling shutter system.
Claims 6 & 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Von Braun (WO 2020053416 A1, hereinafter, "Von Braun").
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang, Kikuchi, 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 Zhang, Kikuchi, and Sugiyama because it is well known in the art to house circuitry on a first device which outputs a control signal to a second device which houses multiple control units.
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang, Kikuchi, 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 Zhang, Kikuchi, and Sugiyama because it is well known in the art to incorporate control circuitry configured to output a control signal to a display on the same device with multiple control units.
Claims 9, 11, & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Kim et al (US 20150312461 A1, hereinafter, "Kim").
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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. Zhang 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 (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."). Zhang does not teach 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, 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 Zhang, Kikuchi, and Sugiyama because it is well known in the art to send a second control signal based on a set exposure time to drive the pixel of an imaging device and output said control signal to said imaging device to drive the pixel of said imaging device.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang, Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Kim teach the limitations of dependent 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 Zhang, Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Kim because it is well known in the art to include circuitry and the imaging device on the same device.
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang, Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Kim teach the limitations of dependent 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 Zhang, Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Kim because it is well known in the art to have the control circuitry and the imaging device on different devices.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kikuchi and Von Braun.
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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 Zhang and Kikuchi because it is well known in the art to synchronize the start times of imaging devices with those of displays.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Kikuchi, Sugiyama, and Onuma (US 20200412898 A1, hereinafter, "Onuma").
Regarding Claim 14, Zhang and Kikuchi teach 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."). 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 Sugiyama and Onuma with those of Zhang and Kikuchi because it is well known in the art to emit light via a passive matrix drive system using a passive matrix.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kikuchi in view of Zhang and Kim.
Regarding Claim 20, Kikuchi and Zhang teach the limitations of dependent Claim 18 as noted above. Kikuchi 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 (Kikuchi pg. 8, para. 3, ln. 1-3, "It is assumed that the minimum exposure time ΔTEmin of the CMOS sensor is four times as long as the light emission cycle ΔTe of the display panel 10 or longer, and that the exposure sliding period ΔTd is twice as long as the light emission period ΔTe or shorter."). Kikuchi 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 Kikuchi and Zhang because it is well known in the art to generate a second control signal for driving a pixel of an imaging device and outputting the second control signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Regarding Claim 10, it is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, Claim 10 refers to a “second” acquisition unit configured to acquire the refresh rate of the display. The specification does not make mention of a second acquisition unit, nor is a second acquisition unit depicted in any of the drawings. There is an acquisition unit 131 in Fig. 6 and an acquisition unit 422 in Fig. 23, but these are for two separate embodiments according to the specification.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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