Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendments filed on 02/06/2026 have been received and considered. Claims 1-18
are pending. No claims have been amended or cancelled. Claims 16-18 have been added.
Specification
The objections to paragraph [0026] and paragraph [0037] due to minor informalities are withdrawn in view of the Applicant’s amendments to the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 6-12, and page 9, lines 17-18, filed 02/06/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive, with similar arguments made for claims 10 and 13. The rejection of claims 1, 10, and 13 has been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 17 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “dividing, by a first display device, video data into multiple buffers” in line 2-3. However, the specification states that “A buffer is circuitry (e.g., memory) that stores video data.” [0026]. Divided data is still data, and they do not become circuitry. Also, it is unclear whether the “multiple buffers” refer to the buffers in the first display device, as Applicant’s Fig. 3 shows multiple buffers 310, 312, 322 of First Display Device 302, but also multiple buffers 311, 313, and 323 for Second Display Device 303. “Correspondence between the specification and claims is required by 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), which provides that claim terms must find clear support or antecedent basis in the specification so that the meaning of the terms may be ascertainable by reference to the specification.” (See MPEP 2173.03). The examiner suggests amending the limitation to be “dividing and storing, by a first display device, video data into multiple buffers of the first display device.” Therefore
Claim 1 also recites “multiple buffers corresponding to regions of the video data” in line 5, which allows multiple competing interpretations: a) “wherein each of the multiple buffers corresponds to a divided region of the video data”, or b) “multiple buffers correspond to regions of the video data, because the video data are stored in the multiple buffers.” Due to the competing interpretations of the limitation, the scope is unclear. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to be “…into multiple buffers, wherein each of the multiple buffers corresponds to a divided region of the video data.”
Claim 1 further recites “to coordinate with the second display device” in line 6. It is unclear what is in coordination with the second display device. The claim, as currently presented, is unclear as to whether the “first buffer” is part of the “first display device.” In other words, either the “first buffer” or the “first display device” is in coordination with the second display device. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to be “to coordinate the first display device with the second display device ”.
Dependent claims 2-9 and 16-18 incorporate independent claim deficiency from claim 1 and thus also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “to control color processing of a first video data subset based on the indicator” in lines 4-5. There is no clear relation between “a first video data subset” in line 5 and “video data subsets” in line 4. Also, it is unclear whether the limitation reads as either a) “a first video data subset based on the indicator”, or b) “control color processing… based on the indicator”. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to be “to control color processing, based on the indicator, of a first video data subset of the video data subsets” to teach the limitation of the latter.
Dependent claims 11 and 12 incorporate independent claim deficiency from claim 10 and thus also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the first region to relatively neighbor the second display device” in line 7. It is unclear what is meant by “relatively neighbor”, as the location of the second display device in respect to the first display device is too vague to be determined.
Claim 13 further recites the limitation “cause the first region to display with the adjusted color process” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear if “the adjusted color process” refers to “a color process operation” or not. The Examiner suggests amending the limitation to be “and cause the first region to be displayed after the color process operation” to have basis with “a color process operation”.
Dependent claims 14 and 15 incorporate independent claim deficiency from claim 13 and thus also rejected under 112(b).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “an image" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “an image” in both lines 1 and 3 recite to the same image or not. A change should be made such that if “an image” in line 3 is a new image, “an image” in lines 1 and 3 should be changed to “a first image” and “a second image” respectively to make a clear distinction. If “an image” in line 3 refers to the same “an image” in line 1, then “an image” in line 3 should be changed to “the image”.
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, 7, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio et al. (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1, hereinafter Kallio) in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192, hereinafter Lee-1), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2016/0358582 A1, hereinafter Lee-2).
Regarding claim 1, Kallio teaches a method, comprising: ([Abstract] “A method for calibrating the color space on multiple displays in a computing system”)
receiving, by the first display device, an indicator from a second display device; ([0048] “Upon launch, the perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 transmits a discovery request 520 to the second display device 506, and the second display device 506 responds by transmitting back display characteristics 522 of the second display 508, including a native color space of the second display 508”, where “the first display device 502 includes at least a processor 510, memory 512 storing various applications that may be executed by the processor 510 including a perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514” [0045]. Note: the display characteristics 522, which includes the color space of the second display 508, is mapped to an indicator.)
and controlling, by the first display device, color processing of data ([0049] “Responsive to receiving the display characteristics 522 for the second display 508, the perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 analyzes the received display characteristics in conjunction with the display data 518 that is locally stored for the first display 504. The perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 utilizes the discovered native color space of the second display 508 and the native color space of the first display 506 to dynamically select a target color space to implement on both displays… without color discrepancies detectable to the human eye—on each display in the computing system.”).
Kallio does not teach dividing, by a first display device, video data into multiple buffers corresponding to regions of the video data. However, this is known in the art as taught by Lee-1.
Lee-1 teaches dividing, by a first display device, video data into multiple buffers corresponding to regions of the video data ([col. 2, lines 63-64] “The video division unit 110 may receive video data and divide the input video data into at least two areas”, where “the data storage unit 120 may include frame buffers for N number of the at least two divided areas of the video data, e.g., ranging from 120-1 to 120-n” [col. 3, lines 25-27]).
Lee-1 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to image processing of divided video data. Lee-1 further teaches that it is known in the art to divide video data before image processing, since “in processing of ultra high resolution videos, such ultra high resolution videos have been divided prior to the processing to increase the processing speed” [col. 1, lines 40-42]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee-1 to Kallio, as the arrangement taught by Lee-1 would allow for video data to be processed quickly.
The combination of Kallio and Lee-1 fails to teach color processing of data of a first buffer of the multiple buffers. However, this is known in the art as taught by Lee-2.
Lee-2 teaches color processing of data of a first buffer of the multiple buffers ([0181] “the processor 1 1820-1 divides all of the contents images based on the number of and the layout pattern of all of the displays 100-1 to 100-n and thereafter, adjusts the luminance of an uppermost left image”, Note: the uppermost left image could be an example of the first buffer, with the divided images stored into buffers as taught by Lee-1).
Lee-2 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Lee-2 further teaches that “a visibility deterioration problem in a local area is reduced, and a visibility of the displayed contents is enhanced” [0067], where “a color distortion phenomenon can be mitigated by improving visibility” [0225]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee-2 to the combination of Kallio and Lee-1 to color process divided video data in order to reduce color distortion between multiple devices.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first display device comprises a scaler circuit to divide the video data into the multiple buffers (Lee-1; video division unit in Fig. 1). In addition, Lee-2 also teaches “the processor 1 1820-1 divides all of the contents images based on the number of and the layout pattern of all of the displays 100-1 to 100-n and thereafter, adjusts the luminance of an uppermost left image or performs one or more processing functions, such as the modification of the contents layout, the modification of the scale, the deactivation of the display, or the like. As such, the operation of each of the displays 100-1 to 100-n may be performed by the embedded processors 1820-1 to 1820-n.” [Lee-2; 0181].
Similarly to claim 1, both Lee-1 and Lee-2 are analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to image processing of divided video data. Lee-1 further teaches that “the video processing apparatus 100 may thus process video as quickly as a number of divided areas without artifacts occurring around a division boundary” [col. 5, lines 22-25]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee-1 to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2, as the arrangement taught by Lee-1 would allow for video data to be processed quickly.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the regions correspond to spatial subsets of a display panel. However, this is known in the art as taught by Lee-2.
Lee-2 teaches wherein the regions correspond to spatial subsets of a display panel (display system 1000 as seen on Fig. 1 and Fig. 4, where “The processor 1 1820-1 divides the processed contents screen based on the number and the layout pattern of all of the displays 100-1 to 100-n and thereafter, transmits the divided contents screen to other displays 100-2 to 100-n” [0182], and “the plurality of displays 100-1 to 100-n are configured to be combined to each other to display one single content” [0166]).
Lee-2 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Lee-2 further teaches that their embodiment such that “a visibility deterioration problem in a local area is reduced, and a visibility of the displayed contents is enhanced” [0067]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee-2 to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 to divide the video data in order to reduce visibility problems on specific regions of a display device.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has substantially similar limitations to claims 1, 2, and 7, therefore, rejected under the same rationales. The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 further teaches a first display device, comprising: (Kallio; [0045] “The exemplary system 500 includes a first display device 502 (e.g., a laptop) with a first display 504”)
a scaler circuit to receive an indicator to coordinate display color with a second display device, (Kallio; [0048] “Upon launch, the perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 transmits a discovery request 520 to the second display device 506, and the second display device 506 responds by transmitting back display characteristics 522 of the second display 508, including a native color space of the second display 508”, where “the first display device 502 includes at least a processor 510, memory 512 storing various applications that may be executed by the processor 510 including a perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514” [0045]. Note: display characteristics 522 is mapped to an indicator, and processor 510 is mapped to a scaler circuit. In addition, both Lee-1 and Lee2 explicitly teaches a scalar circuit as discussed above in claims 1 and 2).
to receive video data from a source device, (Lee-2; [0203] “The display system 1000 may display contents provided from a source device that is connected via a wired or wireless interface”)
a plurality of buffers coupled to the scaler circuit, (Lee-1; Fig. 1, where “the video processing apparatus 100 may divide video, e.g., ultra-high resolution, via the video division unit 110, and refer to pixels belonging to other divided areas which are stored in the respective frame buffers 120-1 through 120-n, included in the data storage unit 120, for the respective divided area being processed. Thus, with such an arrangement, pixels for differing divided areas may be processed in parallel via the image processors 130-1 through 130-n” [col. 5, lines 14-19]).
and a panel to display the video data subsets (Lee-2; [0182] “The processor 1 1820-1 divides the processed contents screen based on the number and the layout pattern of all of the displays 100-1 to 100-n and thereafter, transmits the divided contents screen to other displays 100-2 to 100-n via the interface unit 1 1810-1. The respective processors 1820-2 to 1820-n of other displays 100-2 to 100-n adjust various options based on unique characteristics of the relevant displays 100-2 to 100-n and thereafter, display the options via a display panel”).
Lee-1 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to image processing of divided video data. Lee-1 further teaches that “the video processing apparatus 100 may thus process video as quickly as a number of divided areas without artifacts occurring around a division boundary” [col. 5, lines 22-25]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee-1 to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2, as the arrangement taught by Lee-1 would allow for video data to be processed quickly.
Lee-2 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Lee-1 further teaches that their embodiment such that “a visibility deterioration problem in a local area is reduced, and a visibility of the displayed contents is enhanced” [0067]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Lee-1 to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 in order to reduce visibility problems on specific regions of a display device.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first display device is configured to display an image; and wherein the second display device is configured to display an image (Kallio; [0031] “the multi-display calibration 300 accepts as an input parameter a predefined “max perceptual similarity delta” that represents a maximum permissible offset (e.g., difference in color) between corresponding pixels on the calibrated displays when such displays are displaying identical images.”).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Lee-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192) and Lee-2 (U.S. 2016/0358582 A1), and further in view of Matsui (U.S. 2021/0241717 A1).
The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein controlling color processing comprises controlling a red, green, and blue (RGB) gain of the first buffer independently from a second buffer of the multiple buffers. However, this is known in the art as taught by Matsui.
Matsui teaches wherein controlling color processing comprises controlling a red, green, and blue (RGB) gain of the first buffer independently from a second buffer of the multiple buffers (Fig. 14 (see below), where “in FIG. 14, input of environment correction data as gradation levels of the color components RGB is directly performed” [0141], “In FIG. 14, for example, input fields 501 and adjustment bars 502 of the color components RGB of each of the corner areas” [0140], and “The video source device 13 divides image data (video data) to be displayed on the entire surface of the composite display screen in correspondence with the number of display devices for each of the display devices 111, 112, 113, and 114 through a video signal line 402 and outputs the divided image data to each display device located at a corresponding position.” [0055]. Note: the definition of a RGB gain is taught in the specifications as “a value or values indicating color and/or brightness” [0032]).
Matsui is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Matsui further teaches that “the image display method described above allow a user to easily perform an operation of reducing color difference, which are visible, at the boundary between display screens of display devices in a multiple-display device… through adjustment and are effective to realize reduction of a load on the user” [0149]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matsui to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 in order to reduce color differences between multiple displays with less load and more ease.
PNG
media_image1.png
428
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 (Matsui)
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Lee-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192) and Lee-2 (U.S. 2016/0358582 A1), and further in view of Gonsalves (U.S. 2003/0234810 A1).
The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach further comprising applying a red, green, and blue (RGB) gain curve over the multiple buffers corresponding to the regions. However, it is known in the art as taught by Gonsalves.
Gonsalves teaches applying a red, green, and blue (RGB) gain curve is known in the art of color correction of displayed images, as “The RGB curves allow a user to perform a mathematically nonlinear adjustment to a color component. These curves are particularly useful for color correction because a large number of color problems in an image are nonlinear problems created at the time of acquisition of the image, and these problems are typically introduced in the red, green and blue components of pixels of the image” [0004]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Gonsalves to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 to apply a RGB gain curve for color processing in order to color correct the RGB values of the pixels in a more precise fashion.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Lee-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192) and Lee-2 (U.S. 2016/0358582 A1), and further in view of Mical et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,502,462, hereinafter Mical).
The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein controlling the color processing of the data of the first buffer comprises swapping a first color map of the first buffer with a second color map of a second buffer. However, this is known in the art as taught by Mical.
Mical teaches wherein controlling the color processing of the data of the first buffer comprises swapping a first color map of the first buffer with a second color map of a second buffer ([col. 10, lines 25-27] “the screen buffers are swapped so that the previously hidden second buffer becomes the displayed buffer and the previously displayed first buffer becomes the buffer whose contents are next modified”, where “The image 165 that is rendered on monitor 160 is defined in part by bitmap data stored in one or more screen-band buffers” [col. 10, lines 12-14]. Note: it is known in the art of image processing for bitmap to be synonymous with color map).
Mical is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color correction of color mapped images. Mical further teaches an embodiment where visual realism can be achieved for bit-mapped images for a higher cost of hardware ([col. 3, lines 9-15] “Although bit-mapped computer images originate as a matrix of discrete lit or unlit pixels, the human eye can be fooled into perceiving an image having the desired photography-like continuity if the displayed matrix of independently-shaded (and/or independently colored) pixels has dimensions of approximately 500-by-500 pixels or better at the point of display”), without costing performance ([col. 4, lines 2-5] “it might be possible to create a perception of improved performance without suffering a concomitant burden of significantly higher cost”). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mical to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 such that visual realistic continuity between colors of bit-mapped buffers can be achieved while maintaining performance.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Lee-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192) and Lee-2 (U.S. 2016/0358582 A1), and further in view of Myers (U.S. 2013/0127928 A1).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the method of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the indicator is a color map of the second display device, as the indicator of the second display device as taught by Kallio is a color space ([0048] “display characteristics 522 of the second display 508, including a native color space of the second display 508”). However, this is known in the art as taught by Myers.
Myers teaches wherein the indicator is a color map ([0018] “The processor 106 may access the color mapping 122 to determine how to display image data on the display screen 104”).
Myers is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to accurate color depictions in display devices. Myers further teaches that “Including color mapping logic within a display device may allow a display device to update its color output mapping without use of an additional processor, specialized software, or a particular operating system” [0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Myers to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 such that a display device is able to update its colors within the device itself.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has the same limitations to claim 8, therefore, will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Lee-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192) and Lee-2 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192), and further in view of Lee et al. (U.S. 2017/0315772 A1, hereinafter Lee-3).
The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 teaches the first display device of claim 10, but fails to teach wherein the scaler circuit is to produce an on-screen display (OSD); and receive the indicator in response to the OSD. However, this is known in the art as taught by Lee-3.
Lee-3 teaches wherein the scaler circuit is to produce an on-screen display (OSD); ([0170] “the controller 150 may generate an OSD signal for displaying various types of information in the form of a graphic or a text”. Note: the controller is mapped to the scaler circuit.)
and receive the indicator in response to the OSD ([0172] “The display unit 270 may convert a video signal, a data signal, an OSD signal, etc. processed by the controller 250 into an RGB signal, thereby generating a driving signal.” Note: the RGB signal is mapped to the indicator.).
Lee-3 is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration of a plurality of display devices to improve image quality. Lee-3 further teaches that “the present invention can solve the inconvenience caused in the related art due to an individual synchronization of each image output device” [0055]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee-3 to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 in order to avoid the inconvenience of having to adjust each image output separately.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Myers (U.S. 2013/0127928 A1), and further in view of Matsui (U.S. 2021/0241717 A1).
Kallio teaches a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium comprising instructions when executed cause a processor to: ([0062] “any other tangible medium which can be used to store the desired information, and which can be accessed by the processing device 700”, where “a processing device 700 suitable for implementing aspects of the disclosed technology. The processing device 700 includes one or more processor unit(s) 702” [0059])
cause color correction information to image data of a first display device to be sent to a second display device; ([0049] “The perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 utilizes the discovered native color space of the second display 508 and the native color space of the first display 506 to dynamically select a target color space to implement on both displays”).
and control a color process operation ([0049] “Responsive to receiving the display characteristics 522 for the second display 508, the perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 analyzes the received display characteristics in conjunction with the display data 518 that is locally stored for the first display 504. The perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 utilizes the discovered native color space of the second display 508 and the native color space of the first display 506 to dynamically select a target color space to implement on both displays… without color discrepancies detectable to the human eye—on each display in the computing system.”).
Kallio does not explicitly disclose the color correction information to be color maps. However, this is known in the art as taught by Myers, who teaches a color map ([0018] “The processor 106 may access the color mapping 122 to determine how to display image data on the display screen 104”).
Myers is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to accurate color depictions in display devices. Myers further teaches that “Including color mapping logic within a display device may allow a display device to update its color output mapping without use of an additional processor, specialized software, or a particular operating system” [0010]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Myers to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 such that a display device is able to update its colors within the device itself.
The combination of Kallio and Myers fails to teach corresponding to a first region of video data, the first region to relatively neighbor the second display device; and cause the first region to display with the adjusted color process. However, this is known in the art as taught by Matsui.
Matsui teaches corresponding to a first region of video data, the first region to relatively neighbor the second display device ([0052] “chromaticity is to be adjusted due to presence of color difference in a boundary area 802 with which the corner areas 113UR, 113DR, 114UL, and 114DL of the display devices 113 and 114 are in contact”, where “the divided images are each displayed on the display screens of the display devices is performed” [0003])
and cause the first region to display with the adjusted color process ([0075] “Then, each of the color adjusting units 14 described above displays a predetermined adjustment image on the display screen of its own display device. In this way, on the composite display screen of the video wall system 11, a predetermined adjustment image corrected using the environment correction data is displayed.”)
Matsui is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Matsui further teaches that “the image display method described above allow a user to easily perform an operation of reducing color difference, which are visible, at the boundary between display screens of display devices in a multiple-display device… through adjustment and are effective to realize reduction of a load on the user” [0149]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matsui to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 in order to reduce color differences between multiple displays with less load and more ease.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Kallio, Myers, and Matsui teaches the non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium of claim 13, wherein the processor is to adjust a red, green, and blue (RGB) gain of the first region based on the indicator (Matsui; Fig. 14 (see claim 4), where “in FIG. 14, input of environment correction data as gradation levels of the color components RGB is directly performed” [0141], and “In FIG. 14, for example, input fields 501 and adjustment bars 502 of the color components RGB of each of the corner areas” [0140]. Note: the definition of a RGB gain is taught in the specifications as “a value or values indicating color and/or brightness” [0032]).
Matsui is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Matsui further teaches that “the image display method described above allow a user to easily perform an operation of reducing color difference, which are visible, at the boundary between display screens of display devices in a multiple-display device… through adjustment and are effective to realize reduction of a load on the user” [0149]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matsui to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Lee-2 in order to reduce color differences between multiple displays with less load and more ease.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Myers (U.S. 2013/0127928 A1) and Matsui (U.S. 2021/0241717 A1), and further in view of Mical (U.S. Patent No. 5,502,462).
The combination of Kallio, Myers, and Matsui teaches the non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium of claim 13, but fails to teach wherein the processor is to swap a color map from a second buffer to the first buffer based on the indicator. However, this is known in the art as taught by Mical.
Mical teaches wherein the processor is to swap a color map from a second buffer to the first buffer based on the Indicator ([col. 10, lines 25-27] “the screen buffers are swapped so that the previously hidden second buffer becomes the displayed buffer and the previously displayed first buffer becomes the buffer whose contents are next modified”, where “The image 165 that is rendered on monitor 160 is defined in part by bitmap data stored in one or more screen-band buffers” [col. 10, lines 12-14]).
Mical is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color correction of color mapped images. Mical further teaches an embodiment where visual realism can be achieved for bit-mapped images ([col. 3, lines 9-12] “Although bit-mapped computer images originate as a matrix of discrete lit or unlit pixels, the human eye can be fooled into perceiving an image having the desired photography-like continuity”), for a higher cost of hardware without costing performance ([col. 4, lines 2-5] “it might be possible to create a perception of improved performance without suffering a concomitant burden of significantly higher cost”). Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Mical to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, and Matsui such that visual realistic continuity between colors of bit-mapped buffers can be achieved while maintaining performance.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kallio (U.S. 2022/0353387 A1) in view of Lee-1 (U.S. Patent No. 8,666,192), Lee-2 (U.S. 2016/0358582 A1) and Myers (U.S. 2013/0127928 A1), and further in view of Matsui (U.S. 2021/0241717 A1).
The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, Lee-2 and Myers teaches the method of claim 17, wherein the indicator instructs the first display device to change an RGB value of the first buffer to match the RGB (Kallio; [0049] “Responsive to receiving the display characteristics 522 for the second display 508, the perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 analyzes the received display characteristics in conjunction with the display data 518 that is locally stored for the first display 504. The perceptual similarity multi-display color calibrator 514 utilizes the discovered native color space of the second display 508 and the native color space of the first display 506 to dynamically select a target color space to implement on both displays… without color discrepancies detectable to the human eye—on each display in the computing system”, where “When, for example, a calibrated one of the display devices receives graphics data specifying x/y RGB values, each set of x/y RGB values is mapped, per a stored mapping, to a corresponding set of values within a selected target color space.” [0047]).
However, the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, Lee-2, and Myers fails to teach to match the RGB gain value of a region of the second display device that neighbors the first region corresponding to the first buffer. However, this is known in the art as taught by Matsui.
Matsui teaches to match the RGB gain value of a region of the second display device that neighbors the first region corresponding to the first buffer ([0052] “chromaticity is to be adjusted due to presence of color difference in a boundary area 802 with which the corner areas 113UR, 113DR, 114UL, and 114DL of the display devices 113 and 114 are in contact.”)
Matsui is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Matsui further teaches that “the image display method described above allow a user to easily perform an operation of reducing color difference, which are visible, at the boundary between display screens of display devices” [0144]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Matsui to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, Lee-2, and Myers to reduce the color differences between the regions where the two display devices are at the boundary of each other.
The combination of Kallio, Lee-1, Lee-2, and Myers also fails to teach specifically change an RGB gain value. However, similarly to claim 4, this is known in the art as taught by Matsui. Matsui teaches change an RGB gain value (Fig. 14 (see claim 4), where “in FIG. 14, input of environment correction data as gradation levels of the color components RGB is directly performed” [0141], and “In FIG. 14, for example, input fields 501 and adjustment bars 502 of the color components RGB of each of the corner areas” [0140]. Note: the definition of a RGB gain is taught in the specifications as “a value or values indicating color and/or brightness” [0032], where the RGB values are shown on the input fields 501).
As previously discussed, Matsui is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to color calibration between multiple display devices. Matsui further teaches that “the image display method described above allow a user to easily perform an operation of reducing color difference, which are visible, at the boundary between display screens of display devices in a multiple-display device… through adjustment and are effective to realize reduction of a load on the user” [0149]. Therefore, it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Matsui to the combination of Kallio, Lee-1, Lee-2 and Myers in order to reduce color differences between multiple displays with less load and more ease.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable once the claims overcome the 112(b) rejections, and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In regards to claim 6, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of wherein controlling the color processing of the data of the first buffer comprises adjusting a first color map of the first buffer to coordinate with the second display device by reducing a color difference at an edge of a display panel of the first display device that borders the second display device.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of further compromising sending a color map to the second display device, wherein the indicator from the second display device is received in response to sending the color map and indicates a change in the color processing of the data of the first buffer.
In regards to claim 12, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of wherein the scaler circuit is to swap color maps between the first video data subset and a second video data subset in response to the indicator.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA HA whose telephone number is (571)272-3601. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM, and Fri 9:00 AM - 1:00 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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571) 272-7794. 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.
/ALICIA HA/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights