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 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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2016/0093242) in view of Nepveu et al. (US 2021/0192802).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) discloses an image processing device (Kim, [0048], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a display apparatus 100”), comprising:
an icon overlay control circuit (Kim, [0063], “The signal processor (not shown) is a component for signal-processing image information and voice information that constitute content”) configured to:
generate a first icon-overlaid frame image by blending an icon image with a first frame image using a first blending factor (Kim, [0095], “an OSD menu 610 as a graphic image may be opaquely displayed to be overlaid on one region of a video image 600. That is, the calculator 340 calculates data so as to transmit a video signal and an alpha value (i.e., 0) corresponding to the video image 600…an alpha value (i.e., a maximum alpha value) corresponding to an image of the OSD menu 610”);
determine a second blending factor (Kim, [0096], “In FIG. 6B, an OSD menu 620 as a graphic image is more transparently displayed to be overlaid on one region of the video image 600 than in FIG. 6A…an alpha value (i.e., a value smaller than a maximum alpha value) corresponding to an image of the OSD menu 620”); and
an icon image overlay circuit configured to generate a second icon-overlaid frame image by blending the icon image with a second frame image using the second blending factor (Kim, Fig. 6B illustrates an OSD menu 620 as a graphic image is more transparently displayed to be overlaid on one region of the video image 600 than in FIG. 6A. In addition, in paragraph [0063], “The signal processor (not shown) is a component for signal-processing image information and voice information that constitute content”. The processor includes icon image overlay circuit);
Kim discloses a first image portion of the first icon-overlaid frame image, wherein the first image portion corresponds to the icon image (Kim, Fig. 6A); Kim does not expressly disclose “determine a first icon visibility index”;
Nepveu et al. (hereinafter Nepveu) discloses determine a first icon visibility index (Nepveu, [0053], “the compositing is performed using different visibility values for different virtual objects in the virtual environment 300”);
determining blending based on the visibility (Nepveu, [0084], “the imagery of physical object 202-a is composited (e.g., blended) with imagery of virtual environment 300…the visibility values correspond to alpha channel information in the imageries. The visibility values are used to adjust the transparency of the imagery of the physical object 202-a and the imagery of virtual environment 300”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Kim to perform blending when overlaying graphic image onto a video image by applying the concept of transparency adjustment function using visibility value as taught by Nepveu. The motivation for doing so would have been improving readability of the overlaid image while maintaining visibility of the underlying video image.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses adjusting the first blending factor (Kim, [0097], “In FIG. 6C, an OSD menu 630 as a graphic image is more transparently displayed to be overlaid on one region of the video image 600 than in FIG. 6B…an alpha value (i.e., a value smaller than the alpha value described with reference to FIG. 6B) corresponding to an image of the OSD menu 630, to the α-blending unit 350 with respect to pixels of the region of the OSD menu 630”);
Kim as modified by Nepveu with the same motivation from claim 1 discloses the first icon visibility index (Nepveu, [0084], “the imagery of physical object 202-a is composited (e.g., blended) with imagery of virtual environment 300… the visibility values correspond to alpha channel information in the imageries. The visibility values are used to adjust the transparency of the imagery of the physical object 202-a and the imagery of virtual environment 300”).
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses the second frame image is provided to the image processing device after the first frame image is provided to the image processing device (Kim, [0097], “In FIG. 6C, an OSD menu 630 as a graphic image is more transparently displayed to be overlaid on one region of the video image 600 than in FIG. 6B”), determine a third blending factor for a third frame image provided to the image processing device after the first frame image is provided to the image processing device and before the second frame image is provided to the image processing device (Kim, [0096], “In FIG. 6B, an OSD menu 620 as a graphic image is more transparently displayed to be overlaid on one region of the video image 600 than in FIG. 6A”), the third blending factor having a value between a first value of the first blending factor and a second value of the second blending factor (Kim, Figs. 6A-C), generate a third icon-overlaid frame image by blending the icon image with the third frame image using the third blending factor (Kim, [0096], “In FIG. 6B, an OSD menu 620 as a graphic image is more transparently displayed to be overlaid on one region of the video image 600 than in FIG. 6A…an alpha value (i.e., a value smaller than a maximum alpha value) corresponding to an image of the OSD menu 620, to the α-blending unit 350 with respect to pixels of the region of the OSD menu 620, and according to the calculation result, the display unit 140 may display an image shown in FIG. 6B”).
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses a display device (Kim, [0048], “FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a display apparatus 100”), comprising:
an image processing device (Kim, [0062], “That is, the display unit 140 may display an image signal processed through a signal processor (not shown)”);
a drive circuit (Kim, [0062], “That is, the display unit 140 may display an image signal processed through a signal processor (not shown)”. The processor includes the drive circuit).
The remaining limitations recite in claim 9 are similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses a method (Kim, [0019], “a method of controlling a display apparatus”), comprising:
driving a display panel (Kim, [0062], “the display unit 140 may display an image signal processed through a signal processor (not shown)”).
The remaining limitations recite in claim 15 are similar in scope to the functions recited in claim 1 and therefore are rejected under the same rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7, 10-14 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE ZHAI whose telephone number is (571)270-3740. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. 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.
/KYLE ZHAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights