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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that prior art fails to teach that the adjustments made by the webcam are transmitted to a display. Examiner, respectfully, disagrees. The web cam (fig. 2, 258-2) is built into the display (fig. 2, 246). The webcam hardware microcontroller (fig. 2, 266-2) is part of the display. The web cam adjustments (fig. 2, 260-2, 262-2, and 264-2) are transferred to the microcontroller (which reads on applicant’s transmitting the automatic photography parameter from the webcam to a controller chip of a displayer) and the display (fig. 2, 246) is adjusted based off of the web cam adjustments, allowing for a better display user interface when interacting with the web cam (further explained in fig. 3).
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, 4, 7-10, and 12 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnakumar et al. (hereinafter “Krishnakumar”), US Pub. No. 2025/0254413, in view of Feng et al. (hereinafter “Feng”), US Pub. No. 2023/0379579.
Regarding claim 1, Krishnakumar teaches an image processing method (fig. 2), comprising: capturing an environmental image by a webcam (fig. 2, built-in webcam 258-2); calculating an automatic photography parameter according to the environmental image by the webcam, wherein the automatic photography parameter comprises an auto exposure parameter (fig. 2, auto exposure module 260-2); transmitting the automatic photography parameter from the webcam to a controller chip of a displayer (fig. 2, webcam microcontroller 266-2, display 246); and performing a modulation function by the controller chip according to the automatic photography parameter, so as to change a display screen on the displayer (fig. 2, display 246, auto exposure module 260-2, hybrid face exposure module 262-2, lighting adjustment module 264-2).
Krishnakumar fails to explicitly teach an auto white balance parameter and an auto focus parameter.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches an image capturing device including an image signal processor that may output frames of image data to various modules for further processing such as for 3A parameter synchronization (e.g. automatic focus, automatic white balance, and automatic exposure control) (see [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Krishnakumar to include the feature of Feng. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience (Feng, [0003]).
Regarding claim 2, Feng teaches wherein the automatic photography parameter comprises the auto white balance parameter ([0014], automatic white balance), and performing the modulation function by the controller chip according to the automatic photography parameter comprises: obtaining an environmental color temperature according to the auto white balance parameter; and performing a display color temperature modulation function according to the environmental color temperature, so that a display color temperature of the display screen approaches the environmental color temperature ([0014], automatic white balance; in particular, automatic white balance works by having the camera automatically analyze the color temperature of the light in a scene and adjust the colors to make objects appear white and neutral).
Regarding claim 4, Krishnakumar teaches wherein the automatic photography parameter comprises the auto exposure parameter, and performing the modulation function by the controller chip according to the automatic photography parameter comprises: obtaining an environment brightness according to the auto exposure parameter (fig. 2, [0040]); and performing a display brightness modulation function according to the environment brightness, so that a display brightness of the display screens is positively correlated with the environment brightness (fig. 2, [0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Krishnakumar teaches performing an image processing function by the controller chip according to the automatic photography parameter, so as to generate a modulated environmental image according to the environmental image; and displaying the modulated environmental image on the display screen of the displayer ([0039]).
Regarding claim 8, Krishnakumar teaches performing an image processing function by the controller chip according to the automatic photography parameter, so as to generate a modulated environmental image according to the environmental image (0037-0039]); determining, by the controller chip, whether the modulated environmental image is abnormal ([0039], correction); in response to that the modulated environmental image is determined to be abnormal, generating a feedback signal by the controller chip ([0039]; transmitting the feedback signal to the webcam by the controller chip (fig. 2, microcontroller 266-2); correcting the automatic photography parameter by the webcam according to the feedback signal to generate a corrected automatic photography parameter ([0039]); generating a corrected environmental image by the webcam based on the corrected automatic photography parameter; transmitting, by the webcam, the corrected environmental image to the controller chip of the displayer ([0037-0039]; and generating the display screen by the displayer according to the corrected environmental image ([0039]).
Regarding claim 9, it is an image processing system of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 10, it has similar limitations to those of claim 2 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 12, it has similar limitations to those of claim 4 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 15, it has similar limitations to those of claim 7 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 16, it has similar limitations to those of claim 8 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Regarding claim 17, Krishnakumar teaches wherein the webcam is an external webcam mounted outside the displayer (fig. 2, external webcam 258-1).
Regarding claim 18, Krishnakumar teaches wherein the webcam is a built-in webcam built in the displayer (fig. 2, built-in webcam 258-2).
Regarding claim 19, Krishnakumar teaches wherein the webcam is configured to transmit the automatic photography parameters to the controller chip through a universal serial bus, a high-definition multimedia interface, a network transmission interface, and an inter-integrated circuit (I@C) or a serial peripheral interface bus (SPI) (fig. 1, [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 20, it is a displayer of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnakumar in view of Feng as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dortch et al. (hereinafter “Dortch”), US Patent No. 12,368,963.
Regarding claim 3, Krishnakumar and Feng fail to explicitly teach wherein the automatic photography parameter comprises the auto white balance parameter and the auto exposure parameter, and performing the modulation function by the controller chip according to the automatic photography parameter comprises: calculating an environmental blue light hazard value according to the auto white balance parameter and the auto exposure parameter; calculating a screen blue light hazard value according to a data signal corresponding to the display screen; performing a low blue light modulation function according to the environmental blue light hazard value and the screen blue light hazard value, and adjusting a red light gain value, a green light gain value and a blue light gain value by the low blue light modulation function; and changing a blue light intensity ratio of the display screen based on the red light gain value, the green light gain value and the blue light gain value.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dortch teaches a system and method for automatically adjusting lighting for a video feed including adjusting settings such as white balance and exposure based off views of a facial region (see figs. 6-12; 17-19 and accompanying text; in particular auto white balance works by ensuring the colors are natural and accurate for the particular exposure and auto exposure handles the brightness ensuring the image has the correct exposure).
Regarding claim 11, it has similar limitations to those of claim 3 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 13 and 14 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: None of the prior art, either singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests “obtaining an environment brightness according to the auto exposure parameter; and performing a partition dimming function according to the environment brightness, so that a maximum block brightness of a plurality of display blocks in the display screen is positively correlated with the environment brightness” and “obtaining an object distance according to the auto focus parameter; performing a health reminder function according to the object distance; and generating a prompt message according to the health reminder function, and outputting the prompt message by the displayer.”
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Velarde et al. (US Pub. No. 2010/0157139) teaches a system and method to estimate autoexposure, auto white balance and auto focus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625