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 .
Preliminary amendment
The preliminary amendment to the claims field on 11/18/2024 has been acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
3. . 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 limitation(s) uses 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 limitation(s) is/are: the flicker component estimation unit is configured--; the pixel value correction unit is configured--; and pixel value determination unit determine - in claims [1 and 6].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
. A review of the specification shows: the flicker component estimation unit is to be the structure 1 as depicted in fig. 3 and described in the text of paragraph [0012]; the pixel value correction unit to be the structure 2 as depicted in fig. 3 and described in the text of paragraph [0012] and Pixel value determination unit to be the structure 3 as depicted in fig. 3 and described in the text of paragraph [0012].
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.
Claim(s) [1-4, 6 and 8-10] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawabe (US. 2002/0024481) in view of Yamakawa (US. 2004/0145596).
Reclaim [1], Kawabe discloses an image processing device (see fig. 2) that performs a correction processing to correct a second frame based on a first frame and the second frame (see ¶0008, correcting luminance based on a relationship defined on the basis of an input gradation signal for an (N-1)-th frame and an input gradation signal for an N-th frame. This correction signal is used to correct the input gradation signal for the N-th frame), comprising:
Kawabe doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses a flicker component estimation unit; and a pixel value correction unit, wherein the flicker component estimation unit is configured to obtain a flicker component value based on pixel values of in-region pixels in the first and second frames, the in-region pixels are composed of a plurality of pixels included in a predetermined region in the first and second frames, the plurality of pixels include an attention pixel and a surrounding pixel arranged around the attention pixel, the flicker component value corresponds to a degree of flicker occurring in an image display unit due to a pixel response delay in the in-region pixels when the first frame transits to the second frame, the pixel response delay corresponds to a difference in response speed between an increasing pixel where a pixel value increases and a decreasing pixel where a pixel value decreases among the plurality of pixels when the first frame transits to the second frame, the pixel value correction unit is configured to obtain a corrected pixel value based on the flicker component value, and the corrected pixel value is a value obtained by correcting the pixel value of the attention pixel in the second frame.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Yamakawa discloses an image processing device as Kawabe (see Yamakawa figs. 1 and 12). Yamakawa further discloses: a flicker component estimation unit (see 30 fig. 12, the claimed flicker component estimation unit is equated to the prior art flicker amount measurement unit 30 ); and a pixel value correction unit (see 11 fig. 1, the prior art compensation means 11 is equated to claimed pixel value correction unit), wherein the flicker component estimation unit (30 fig. 12) is configured to obtain a flicker component value based on pixel values of in-region pixels in the first and second frames (see Ef based on the first and second frame as depicted in fig. 12), the in-region pixels are composed of a plurality of pixels included in a predetermined region in the first and second frames (see¶0053, delay means 6 second encoded data Da1 corresponding to a frame before the frame corresponding to the mentioned first encoded data Da2 by one frame [region in the successive frames]), the plurality of pixels include an attention pixel and a surrounding pixel arranged around the attention pixel (see¶0059, frame data Di2 and adjacent pixels) , the flicker component value corresponds to a degree of flicker occurring in an image display unit due to a pixel response delay in the in-region pixels when the first frame transits to the second frame (see ¶066, The flicker detector 14 outputs a flicker detection signal Ef [ the delay being the luminance variation in the respective frames as disclosed in the text of paragraph 0053]), the pixel response delay corresponds to a difference in response speed between an increasing pixel where a pixel value increases and a decreasing pixel where a pixel value decreases among the plurality of pixels when the first frame transits to the second frame (see ¶0079, a gradation rate-of-change compensation amount Dv is a compensation amount that compensates data corresponding to number of gradations higher than that of the mentioned target frame out of the frame data Di2 corresponding to the mentioned target frame), the pixel value correction unit is configured to obtain a corrected pixel value based on the flicker component value (see ¶0066, The flicker detector 14 outputs a flicker detection signal Ef to the compensation amount output device 13 in accordance with data corresponding to a flicker component in the data corresponding to a target frame from the mentioned first decoded data Db2, second decoded data Db1 and third decoded data db0), and the corrected pixel value is a value obtained by correcting the pixel value of the attention pixel in the second frame (see ¶0067, the compensation amount output device 13 outputs a compensation amount Dc to compensate frame data Di2 based on the mentioned first decoded data Db2).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify Kawabe before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by the teachings of Yamakawa since this would allow to correct flicker by adjusting a graduation rate-of-change of a liquid crystal.
Reclaim [2], Kawabe as modified further discloses wherein the flicker component estimation unit obtains the flicker component value based on a difference between a first statistical value and a second statistical value the first statistical value is a statistical value of the pixel values of the plurality of pixels of the in-region pixels in the first frame, and the second statistical value is a statistical value of the pixel values of the plurality of pixels of the in-region pixels in the second frame (see Kawabe ¶0062, the time-based correction signal generating module 103 receiving the gradation data for the previous frame and the current gradation data and compensating for too much or too little luminance based on signal changes between the frames.)
Reclaim [3], Kawabe as modified further discloses, wherein the statistical value is an average value, a variance value, a median value, or a low- frequency component value of the pixel values of the plurality of pixels of the in-region pixels, and the low-frequency component value is a weighted value in a probability density distribution according to at least one of an interpixel distance and a pixel value (see Kawabe fig. 3, the graduation level signal is average value).
Reclaim [4], Kawabe as modified further discloses wherein the flicker component estimation unit obtains the flicker component value based on an increasing value and a decreasing value, the increasing value is based on the pixel value of the increasing pixel among the plurality of pixels when the first frame transits to the second frame, and the decreasing value is based on the pixel value of the decreasing pixel among the plurality of pixels when the first frame transits to the second frame (see Kawabe ¶ 0062, he time-based correction signal generating module 103 receiving the gradation data for the previous frame and the current gradation data and compensating for too much or too little luminance based on signal changes between the frames, [too much or too little correspond to increasing and decreasing value of a pixel luminance value])
Reclaim [6], Kawabe as modified further discloses wherein, wherein the image processing device further comprises a pixel value determination unit, the pixel value correction unit is configured to obtain a transition amount based on the flicker component value and obtain the corrected pixel value based on the transition amount, and the pixel value determination unit determines the pixel value of the attention pixel in the first frame used in the correction processing after a current correction processing according to a magnitude of the transition amount (.see Kawabe ¶0065, The adder/subtracter 104 adds or subtracts this correction signal .DELTA.li to the input gradation signal l', and outputs a corrected gradation signal l" to the data driver 109, [the adder subtraction unit also acts as a determination unit when correcting each pixel using the correction value]).
Reclaim [8] Kawabe as modified further discloses wherein the image processing device further comprises an image display unit (see Kawabe 105 fig. 2), and the image display unit is configured to display a frame where the corrected pixel value obtained by the pixel value correction unit is reflected (see Kawabe ¶0066, As a result, the original contrast of the input gradation signal can be reproduced. In particular, this allows visually sharp images to be displayed from the original gradation signal when displaying video).
Reclaim [9] except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [1] above, and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Reclaim [10] is a program for performing a function of claim [1] and a step of claim [9] and thus anyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim [5 and 7] is 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:
Reclaim[5] none of the prior arts on the record either singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests: wherein the increasing value is a sum of a difference between the pixel values of the first and second frames in the increasing pixel, and the decreasing value is a sum of a difference between the pixel values of the first and second frames in the decreasing pixel.
Reclaim[7] none of the prior arts on the record either singularly or in combination teaches or reasonably suggests: wherein when the transition amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, the pixel value determination unit sets the pixel value of the attention pixel in the first frame used in the correction processing after the current correction processing as the pixel value of the attention pixel in the second frame of the current correction processing, when the transition amount is less than the predetermined threshold, the pixel value determination unit sets the pixel value of the attention pixel in the first frame used in the correction processing after the current correction processing as a transition pixel value, and the transition pixel value is the corrected pixel value obtained in the current correction processing, the pixel value of the attention pixel in the second frame in the current correction processing, or a value between these two.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Benjamin (US. 8, 675, 029) discloses: A method for use in correcting flicker in a display according to one embodiment of the present invention is described. The display includes a plurality of pixel elements (e.g., one or more of the pixel elements having a luminance rise rate that may be different than a luminance fall rate for the pixel element). The method includes providing a first display data frame of a plurality of sequentially provided display data frames (e.g., the first display data frame for use in initiating display of a first image by the plurality of pixel elements at a first time) and providing a second display data frame subsequent to the first display data frame (e.g., the second display data frame for use in initiating display of a subsequent image by the plurality of pixel elements at a second time). The method further includes inserting at least one transition data frame between the first display data frame and the subsequent second display data frame for use in displaying a transition image by the plurality of pixel elements such that a user perceives display of a constant average luminance by the plurality of pixel elements. In col. 2-3 lines 53-4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights