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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 5, “the backlight, positioned facing the display unit;” should be “the backlight, positioned facing the display unit; and” to match the same line on substantially similar claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a brightness control unit configured to control”; “a pixel compensation unit configured to generate”; “a first statistics obtaining unit configured to obtain”; “a second statistics obtaining unit configured to obtain”; “an anomaly detection unit configured to detect” in claim 1, “a superimposition region setting unit configured to… set” in claims 4 and 5, “a brightness control unit configured to control”; “a pixel compensation unit configured to generate”; “an internal statistics obtaining unit configured to obtain”; “an anomaly detection unit configured to detect” in claim 8, “a display engine configured to perform” in both claims 13 and 14, and “a head unit configured to generate” in claims 15 and 16.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi et al. (US 2023/0245628, hereinafter Adachi), in view of Akiba (US 2023/0245627).
Regarding claim 1, Adachi teaches an image display control device with a local dimming function, the image display control device comprising: (“FIG. 1 shows a configuration example of a display apparatus 40 including a circuit device 100 according to the present embodiment. The display apparatus 40 includes the circuit device 100 and a display unit 300.”, where “the circuit device 100 performs dimming control such as local dimming” [0043])
a brightness control unit configured to control a brightness of each of a plurality of light sources based on first image information representing images to be displayed on a display unit ([0039] “The light source control circuit 180 transmits the light source control data based on the light amount information DIM of the light sources” where [0038] “The dimming circuit 135 dims the light sources of the backlight 330 based on the luminance information YA… The dimming circuit 135 outputs light amount information DIM of the light sources determined by dimming and light amount compensation.” and “The luminance analysis circuit 125 analyzes luminance of input image data IMA, and outputs an analysis result thereof as luminance information YA.” [0037]),
the plurality of light sources being included in a backlight; ([0039] “The light source control data is data for controlling turning-on, turning-off, or light amounts of the light sources of the backlight 330.”)
a pixel compensation unit configured to generate second image information by correcting pixel values included in the first image information based on the brightness of each of the plurality of light sources; ([0038] “The color correction based on the light amount information DIM is mainly to correct a luminance value of each pixel of the input image data IMA based on the light amount information DIM.”)
a first statistics obtaining unit configured to obtain first statistical data with respect to the pixel values included in the first image information; ([0037] “The luminance analysis circuit 125 analyzes luminance of input image data IMA, and outputs an analysis result thereof as luminance information YA.”, where “An example of the luminance information YA is a luminance image indicating a luminance value of each pixel” [0037]. Note: the “luminance of input image data IMA” is the first statistical data.)
a second statistics obtaining unit configured to obtain second statistical data with respect to pixel values included in the second image information; ([0038] “The dimming circuit 135 outputs light amount information DIM of the light sources determined by dimming and light amount compensation.” Note: the “light amount information DIM” is the second statistical data.).
Adachi fails to teach an anomaly detection unit configured to detect an anomaly of the brightness control unit or the pixel compensation unit based on an amount of difference of the second statistical data from the first statistical data. However, this is known in the art as taught by Akiba.
Akiba teaches an image display control device with a local dimming function, the image display control device comprising: (Fig. 2, where “the dimming control circuit 50 performs the dimming control of the backlight 120 having a plurality of light sources, and implements the dimming control referred to as, for example, the local dimming” [0039])
an anomaly detection unit configured to detect an anomaly of the brightness control unit or the pixel compensation unit based on an amount of difference of the second statistical data from the first statistical data ([0051] “Then, the comparison circuit 80 compares the image data IMR after being subjected to the reverse color correction with the original image data IM, so that it is possible to detect whether a problem occurs in the color correction of the color correction circuit 30 and the dimming control of the dimming control circuit 50.” where “the original image is regenerated based on the image after being subjected to the color correction… and the regenerated image is compared with the input image… check[ing] that a correction amount of the color and the adjustment amount of the light source match each other” [0046]. Note: the correction amount and the adjustment amount are the statistical data being compared to between the “original image data IM”, which is the first image information, and the regenerated “image data IMR”, which is the second image information, where the regenerated image is created through reverse color correction).
Akiba is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to a local dimming control on a display device with a backlight. Akiba further teaches that “it is possible to appropriately check whether the dimming control in the display device 100 is correctly executed. As a result, for example, reliability of the circuit device 10 can be improved” [0027]. 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 Akiba to Adachi to detect an anomaly of the brightness control in order to improve the reliability of the local dimming device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Adachi and Akiba teaches the image display control device according to claim 1, wherein the anomaly detection unit is further configured to detect the anomaly of the brightness control unit or the pixel compensation unit when a proportion of change of the second statistical data relative to the first statistical data is beyond a predetermined range (Akiba; [0026] “Then, the comparison circuit 80 determines whether the obtained index exceeds a given threshold value, and outputs the error detection information such as the error detection signal or the error detection data when the obtained index exceeds the threshold value. On the other hand, the comparison circuit 80 does not output the error detection information when the index value indicating the degree of coincidence is equal to or less than the given threshold value.”, where “the comparison circuit 80 obtains an index indicating the degree of coincidence between the image data IM and the image data IMR after being subjected to the reverse color correction” [0026]).
Similarly to claim 1, Akiba is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to a local dimming control on a display device with a backlight. Akiba further teaches that “it is possible to appropriately check whether the dimming control in the display device 100 is correctly executed. As a result, for example, reliability of the circuit device 10 can be improved” [0027]. 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 Akiba to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to detect an anomaly of the brightness control in order to improve the reliability of the local dimming device.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but instead of a first and second image information with first and second statistical data, internal image information and internal statistical data is used. The combination of Adachi and Akiba further teaches an internal statistics obtaining unit configured to obtain internal statistical data of pixel values included in internal image information (Akiba; [0051] “the regenerated image is compared with the input image… check[ing] that a correction amount of the color and the adjustment amount of the light source match each other”. Note: Even though obtaining statistical data is not explicitly stated, Akiba teaches that it checks the “correction amount” and “adjustment amount”, which requires the device to obtain these amounts before checking them.),
the internal image information being generated during a process of generating the second image information from the first image information (Akiba; [0051] “compares the image data IMR after being subjected to the reverse color correction”, where “the original image is regenerated based on the image after being subjected to the color correction” [0046]. Note: the regenerated image is the same as the reverse color correction image, as the system regenerates the original image by reversing the color correction. This regeneration process is also done in the same process of generating the second image information, which is the done in the “color correction circuit 30” as seen in Fig. 1.);
and an anomaly detection unit configured to detect an anomaly in local dimming based on the internal statistical data (Akiba; [0051] “Then, the comparison circuit 80 compares the image data IMR after being subjected to the reverse color correction with the original image data IM, so that it is possible to detect whether a problem occurs in the color correction of the color correction circuit 30 and the dimming control of the dimming control circuit 50”).
Similarly to claim 1, Akiba is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to a local dimming control on a display device with a backlight. Akiba further teaches that “it is possible to appropriately check whether the dimming control in the display device 100 is correctly executed. As a result, for example, reliability of the circuit device 10 can be improved” [0027]. 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 Akiba to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to improve the reliability of the local dimming device.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Adachi and Akiba teaches the image display control device according to claim 1, wherein the anomaly detection unit is further configured to prevent or substantially prevent an anomaly detection process from being executed for a period of at least one frame when content of the images displayed on the display unit changes or when the image display control device is started. (Akiba; [0067] “In this case, a method of performing the color correction, luminance analysis, and calculation of the dimming amount on the image data IM corresponding to the input image data IMI to output the display image data IMD, for example, with a delay of one frame may be considered”. Note: for the “input image data IMI” to be analyzed and color corrected, it would have to be inputted into the system, therefore, would cause a change in the content of the images displayed.)
Akiba is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to a local dimming control on a display device with a backlight. Akiba further teaches that “when the display image data IMD corresponding to the dimming control is output from the color correction circuit 30 to the display device 100 before the dimming control based on the calculation result of the dimming amount of the dimming amount calculation circuit 54 is performed, a problem occurs in image display on the display device 100” [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 teachings of Akiba to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to have a delay of at least one frame to prevent conflicts of processing time between the various processes involved in the anomaly detection process.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Adachi and Akiba further teaches the image display control device according to claim 1, wherein the anomaly detection unit is further configured to, when the anomaly is detected, output the first image information as the second image information regardless of an operation of the pixel compensation unit, and light up the plurality of light sources regardless of an operation of the brightness control unit (Adachi; [0054] “Since a result obtained by combining an image displayed on the display panel 340 based on the image data and illumination performed by the backlight 330 is visually recognized by the user, a result of the color correction and a result of the light amount compensation cancel each other. Accordingly, even if an abnormality occurs in the light source, it is possible to provide a natural display image as if no abnormality occurs in the light source.” Note: as the color correction and the light compensation works to cancel each other out, the image is the same as outputting the original input image, which Adachi states is the “natural display image”).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but with a display engine and processor. The combination of Adachi and Akiba further teaches an image display control device comprising: a display engine configured to perform a local dimming process (Adachi; [0043] “the circuit device 100 performs dimming control such as local dimming”);
a processor configured to control an operation of the display engine, (Adachi; “The color correction circuit 115, the luminance analysis circuit 125, the dimming circuit 135, the light amount abnormality detection circuit 145, and the light source control circuit 180 are logic circuits… In this case, a program or an instruction set in which a function of each circuit is described is stored in a memory, and the function of each circuit is implemented by a processor executing the program or the instruction set.”, where “The circuit device 100 includes… a color correction circuit 115, a luminance analysis circuit 125… a dimming circuit 135, a light amount abnormality detection circuit 145… [and] a light source control circuit 180” [0033]).
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has substantially similar limitations to claim 13, where the device of claim 8 further comprises a display engine and processor. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected under the same rationale as claim 13.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a system form. The combination of Adachi and Akiba further teaches an image display system comprising: the image display control device of claim 1 (Adachi; Fig. 1, where “The display apparatus 40 includes the circuit device 100 and a display unit 300.” [0020] and “A processing device 200 transmits image data to the circuit device 100 of the display apparatus 40.” [0021])
the display unit; (Adachi; [0020] “display unit 300”)
the backlight, positioned facing the display unit; ([0027] “The backlight 330 overlaps the display panel 340 such that a side on which the plurality of light sources are disposed faces the display panel 340”)
and a head unit configured to generate the images and output the first image information, representing the generated images, to the image display control device. (Adachi; [0024] “The display apparatus 40 may be any apparatus as long as it is an apparatus that presents an image to the user based on the image data. As an example, the display apparatus 40 is an in-vehicle cluster panel, a television apparatus, a monitor of an information processing terminal, a projector, a head-up display apparatus, or the like”).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has substantially similar limitations to claim 15, but as a system form of claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has substantially similar limitations to claim 1, but in a method form. The combination of Adachi and Akiba further teaches an image display control method for use in an image display control device with a local dimming function (Akiba; [0067] “a method of performing the color correction, luminance analysis, and calculation of the dimming amount on the image data IM corresponding to the input image data IMI to output the display image data IMD”).
Akiba is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to a local dimming control on a display device with a backlight. Akiba further teaches an invention to solve a gap that previous prior art fail to address, which is “a method for checking whether appropriate color correction is performed on image data has not been proposed so far” [0004], where “the color correction may also be referred to as luminance correction or gradation correction of the image data” [0023]. 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 Akiba to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to create a method such that appropriate color correction is done on luminance correction.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has substantially similar limitations to claim 17, as it has substantially similar limitations to claim 8 in a method form. Therefore, claim 18 will be rejected under the same rationale as claim 17.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 2023/0245628), in view of Akiba (US 2023/0245627), and further in view of Furumoto et al. (US 2015/0035848, hereinafter Furumoto).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Adachi and Akiba teaches the image display control device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the images to be displayed on the display unit include an original image and a superimposition image to be superimposed on the original image, wherein the first statistics obtaining unit is further configured to obtain the first statistical data with respect to a superimposition region in the first image information, the superimposition region including the superimposition image, and wherein the second statistics obtaining unit is further configured to obtain the second statistical data with respect to the superimposition region in the second image information. However, this is known in the art as taught by Furumoto.
Furumoto teaches the images to be displayed on the display unit include an original image and a superimposition image to be superimposed on the original image, ([Abstract] “a control unit configured to control the emission brightness of each of the light sources according to a brightness of an image to be displayed in a region on the screen corresponding to each of the plurality of light sources, wherein when a graphic image is superimposed on an original image and is displayed, the control unit changes the emission brightness of each of the light sources according to a type of the graphic image.” Note: the “graphic image” is the superimposition image.)
wherein the first statistics obtaining unit is further configured to obtain the first statistical data with respect to a superimposition region in the first image information ([0063] “The first feature value acquisition unit 103 acquires and outputs a brightness feature value (first feature value) representing the brightness of the image from the original image data in the relevant region”. Note: the relevant region is the region where the images are superimposed.),
and wherein the second statistics obtaining unit is further configured to obtain the second statistical data with respect to the superimposition region in the second image information ([0065] “The second feature value acquisition unit 104 acquires and outputs a brightness feature value (second feature value) from the composite image data (composite image data output from the composite processing unit 102) in the relevant region with regard to each of a plurality of regions (divided regions) corresponding to a plurality of light sources.”).
Furumoto is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to brightness control on a display device with a backlight including a plurality of light sources. Furumoto further teaches that “in cases where the brightness of the graphic image differs considerably from the brightness of the surrounding image in the composite image, the picture quality of the graphic image will deteriorate considerably in the displayed image” [0006]. 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 Furumoto to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to focus on the relevant region where the images are superimposed, since not accounting for the brightness of the superimposition region would make the quality of the superimposition image to degrade.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Adachi, Akiba, and Furumoto teaches the image display control device according to claim 2, wherein the brightness control unit is further configured to make constant a brightness of a light source corresponding to the superimposition region among the plurality of light sources (Furumoto; [0133] “the emission brightness of the light sources, among the plurality of light sources, corresponding to the regions where the graphic image is displayed is controlled to be a value that is higher by a predetermined value than the emission brightness according to the brightness of the original image”. Note: as the emission brightness of the superimposition region is controlled at a predetermined value, it would mean that the brightness is kept at a constant at that value.).
Similarly to claim 2, Furumoto is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to brightness control on a display device with a backlight including a plurality of light sources. Furumoto further teaches that “It is thereby possible to suppress the deterioration in the visibility of the safety area marker” [0133], where the “safety area marker” is an example of a superimposition image ([0121] “first type graphic image (safety area marker)”). 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 Furumoto to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to keep a constant brightness of the superimposition area to suppress the deterioration of the superimposition image.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Adachi (US 2023/0245628), in view of Akiba (US 2023/0245627), and further in view of Takanashi et al. (US 2015/0287370, hereinafter Takanashi).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Adachi and Akiba teaches the image display control device according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the first statistical data includes at least one of a maximum value, an average value and a minimum value of the pixel values included in the first image information. However, this is known in the art as taught by Takanashi.
Takanashi teaches the first statistical data includes at least one of a maximum value, an average value and a minimum value of the pixel values included in the first image information ([0063] “The light-emission control unit 105 acquires, for each of the divided regions, a feature value of the input image data in the divided region.”, where “The feature value is, for example, a histogram or a representative value of pixel values… The representative value is, for example, a maximum, a minimum, an average, a mode, or a median.” [0063]. Note: a histogram of the input image data would have the minimum and maximum values, and the average could be found by the histogram, as shown by the representative value of what it could be.).
Using the teaching of Takanashi on histograms, the combination of Adachi, Akiba, and Takanashi teaches the second statistical data includes at least one of a maximum value, an average value, and a minimum value of pixel values included in the second image information, corresponding to the first statistical data (“BF1 indicates a luminance distribution before the light amount adjustment… AF1 indicates a luminance distribution after the light amount adjustment. Since the light amounts of the adjustment target light sources are increased, the illumination luminance of the display panel increases in the area corresponding to the abnormal light source and areas corresponding to the adjustment target light sources.” Note: similarly to a histogram, a luminance distribution would have minimum and maximum values, and it is known to calculate the average of a distribution as statistical data.).
Takanashi is analogous to the claimed invention, as both relate to brightness control of a display with a backlight including a plurality of light sources. Takanashi further teaches that “[a]ccording to the present invention it is possible to highly accurately execute calibration of an image display apparatus while suppressing deterioration in the quality of a displayed image” [0031]. 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 Takanashi to the combination of Adachi and Akiba to perform brightness control without deteriorating the quality of the images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable 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 4, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of “The image display control device according to claim 2, further comprising a superimposition region setting unit configured to, when the superimposition image is smaller than each of a plurality of light emitting zones that correspond to the plurality of light sources, place the superimposition image at a location where the superimposition image fits inside one light emitting zone and set the one light emitting zone, in which the superimposition image is placed, as the superimposition region.” Therefore, claim 4 is considered allowable.
In regards to claim 5, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of “The image display control device according to claim 2, further comprising a superimposition region setting unit configured to, when the superimposition image is larger than each of a plurality of light emitting zones that correspond to the plurality of light sources, set one light emitting zone that includes a larger number of pixels of the superimposition image than any other light emitting zone among the plurality of light emitting zones, as the superimposition region.” Therefore, claim 5 is considered allowable.
In regards to claim 9, the prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the limitations of “The image display control device according to claim 8, wherein the pixel compensation unit is configured to generate the internal image information by correcting the pixel values included in the first image information based on the brightness of the plurality of light sources, the first image information being represented by a first number of bits and the internal image information being represented by a second number of bits that is an expansion of the first number of bits, and wherein the internal statistical data includes at least one of: a maximum value among pixel values included in the internal image information; an average value of pixel values greater than a first pixel value among the pixel values included in the internal image information; or a proportion of pixels having the pixel values greater than the first pixel value to all pixels.” Therefore, claim 9 is considered allowable.
Claim 10 contains allowable subject matter because it depends on claim 9, which contains allowable subject matter.
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