DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species V [figure 1e corresponding to claims 1-6, 10-17, & 21-22] in the reply filed on 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 & 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/23/2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/29/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 11-14, 16-17, & 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coley et al. (US 20130016082), in view of Yoo et al. (US 20200005691).
As to claim 1, Coley teaches a self-calibrating display system [abstract], comprising:
a photosensor (photosensors 115, para. 34) [fig. 1 & para. 25-27] disposed at a digital display screen (photosensor 115 disposed at screen 110 of display 105) [fig. 1 & para. 25-27] of a display (display 105) [fig. 1 & para. 24-25]; and
a processor (calibration module 130) [fig. 1 & para. 30-32] configured to:
display a test pattern (display test pattern 150) [figs. 1-2 & para. 30] on the digital display screen;
determine a correction factor (luminance correction factors 165) [figs. 1-2 & para. 32-34] based on luminance values as detected by the photosensor of at least a portion of the displayed test pattern [figs. 1-2 & para. 32-34]; and
apply the determined correction factor to adjust a display driving level (display adapter 135 utilizes luminance correction factors 165) [figs. 1-2 & para. 30-34] of the digital display.
Coley does not explicitly teach wherein the display is a head-mounted display.
Yoo teaches the concept of a self-calibrating display system [abstract], wherein a display is a head-mounted display [para. 44 & 16].
Because Coley and Yoo are in the same field of endeavor, i.e., self-calibrating display systems that utilizes a photosensor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the display of the self-calibrating display system of Coley, with a head-mounted display, as taught by Yoo, for the purposes of achieving the predictable result of displaying images to a user.
As to claim 2, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to compare a generated characteristic curve (measured luminance characteristic) [Coley: para. 8-9] of the digital display screen with a standard display function (grayscale standard display function) [Coley: abstract & para. 5-6, 8-9, & 30] to determine the correction factor (correction factors) [para. 9].
As to claim 3, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 2, wherein the standard display function is a greyscale standard display function for medical imaging displays (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) part 14) [Coley: abstract & para. 5-6 & 30].
As to claim 5, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the digital display screen comprises a lens-facing surface and an opposing surface (screen 110 facing transparent sheet 120 & opposing surface of display 105) [Coley: para. 27].
As to claim 6, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 5, wherein the photosensor is disposed at the lens-facing surface (screen 110) [Coley: para. 27].
As to claim 11, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to generate a calibration record [Coley: para. 34].
As to claim 12, Coley teaches a method of self-calibrating a display system [abstract], comprising:
displaying a test pattern (display test pattern 150) [figs. 1-2 & para. 30] on a digital display screen (screen 110 of display 105) [fig. 1 & para. 25-27] of a display (display 105) [fig. 1 & para. 24-25];
determining a correction factor (luminance correction factors 165) [figs. 1-2 & para. 32-34] based on luminance values as detected by a photosensor (photosensors 115, para. 34) [fig. 1 & para. 25-27] disposed at the digital display screen (photosensor 115 disposed at screen 110 of display 105) [fig. 1 & para. 25-27], the luminance values detected from at least a portion of the displayed test pattern [figs. 1-2 & para. 32-34]; and
applying the determined correction factor to adjust a display driving level (display adapter 135 utilizes luminance correction factors 165) [figs. 1-2 & para. 30-34] of the digital display screen.
Coley does not explicitly teach wherein the display is a head-mounted display.
Yoo teaches the concept of a method of self-calibrating display system [abstract], wherein a display is a head-mounted display [para. 44 & 16].
Because Coley and Yoo are in the same field of endeavor, i.e., self-calibrating display systems that utilizes a photosensor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the display utilized with the method of the self-calibrating display system of Coley, with a head-mounted display, as taught by Yoo, for the purposes of achieving the predictable result of displaying images to a user.
As to claim 13, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising comparing a generated characteristic curve (measured luminance characteristic) [Coley: para. 8-9] of the digital display screen with a standard display function (grayscale standard display function) [Coley: abstract & para. 5-6, 8-9, & 30] to determine the correction factor (correction factors) [para. 9].
As to claim 14, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the standard display function is a greyscale standard display function for medical imaging displays (Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) part 14) [Coley: abstract & para. 5-6 & 30].
As to claim 16, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the digital display screen comprises a lens-facing surface and an opposing surface (screen 110 facing transparent sheet 120 & opposing surface of display 105) [Coley: para. 27].
As to claim 17, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 16, wherein the photosensor is disposed at the lens-facing surface (screen 110) [Coley: para. 27].
As to claim 22, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising generating a calibration record [Coley: para. 34].
Claim(s) 4 & 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coley, in view of Yoo, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 20220139279).
As to claim 4, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 1 (see above).
Coley as modified by Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein the head-mounted display is a virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset, or mixed reality headset.
Kim teaches the concept of self-calibrating display system [abstract], wherein a head-mounted display is a virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset, or mixed reality headset [fig. 1 & para. 11 & 68 & abstract & title].
Because Coley, Yoo, and Kim are in the same field of endeavor, i.e., self-calibrating display systems that utilizes a photosensor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the head-mounted display of the self-calibrating display system of Coley as modified by Kim, with a head-mounted display that is a virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset, or mixed reality headset, as taught by Kim, for the purposes of achieving the predictable result of displaying images to a user.
As to claim 15, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 12 (see above).
Coley as modified by Yoo does not explicitly teach wherein the head-mounted display is a virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset, or mixed reality headset.
Kim teaches the concept of self-calibrating display system [abstract], wherein a head-mounted display is a virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset, or mixed reality headset [fig. 1 & para. 11 & 68 & abstract & title].
Because Coley, Yoo, and Kim are in the same field of endeavor, i.e., self-calibrating display systems that utilizes a photosensor, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the head-mounted display utilized with the method of self-calibrating display system of Coley as modified by Kim, with a head-mounted display that is a virtual reality headset, augmented reality headset, or mixed reality headset, as taught by Kim, for the purposes of achieving the predictable result of displaying images to a user.
Claim(s) 10 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coley, in view of Yoo, and further in view of Ma et al. (US 9754543).
As to claim 10, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine a color correction factor [Coley: para. 21] based on color values as detected by the photosensor of at least a portion of the displayed test pattern.
Coley as modified by Yoo does not explicitly teach applying the determined color correction factor to adjust a color temperature of the digital display screen.
Ma teaches the concept of a self-calibrating display system [abstract], that determines a color correction factor (corresponding to DICOM) [para. 23 & 39-42] based on color values as detected by the photosensor of at least a portion of the displayed test pattern; and
applies the determined color correction factor to adjust a color temperature of the digital display screen (color temperature) [para. 30-32 & 39-42].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of the self-calibrating display system of Coley as modified by Yoo, such that the processor applies the determined color correction factor to adjust a color temperature of the digital display screen, as taught by Ma, to improve image quality and therefore the accuracy of medical diagnosis, as taught by Ma [para. 6].
As to claim 21, Coley as modified by Yoo teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
determining a color correction factor [Coley: para. 21] based on color values as detected by the photosensor of at least a portion of the displayed test pattern.
Coley as modified by Yoo does not explicitly teach applying the determined color correction factor to adjust a color temperature of the digital display screen.
Ma teaches the concept of a method of self-calibrating display system [abstract], that determines a color correction factor (corresponding to DICOM) [para. 23 & 39-42] based on color values as detected by the photosensor of at least a portion of the displayed test pattern; and
applies the determined color correction factor to adjust a color temperature of the digital display screen (color temperature) [para. 30-32 & 39-42].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of self-calibrating display system of Coley as modified by Yoo, such that the method further applies the determined color correction factor to adjust a color temperature of the digital display screen, as taught by Ma, to improve image quality and therefore the accuracy of medical diagnosis, as taught by Ma [para. 6].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Laffont et al. (US 20200051320).
Deroo et al. (US 20070055143).
Sharma et al. (US 11307415).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID TUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3385. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 10:00AM - 6:00PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571)-272-7603. 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.
/DAVID TUNG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622