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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 14, and 20 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to:
What is meant by foveated blending in the context of the claim. The disclosure sets forth in paragraph 27 “As used herein, the terms “foveated blending,” “foveation blending,” etc., generally, may refer to image processing techniques by which high resolution fovea image data is positioned of over low resolution periphery image data, and “blending based on foveated blending” may refer to a blending portions of data for an image that differ in resolution between fovea and periphery regions, which may generate a “blended output””. The “generally may refer to” and “may refer to” language does not impart a specific definition on the term or guide the interpretation of the limitation, since, the disclosure appears to contemplate other usage of the terms/other definitions for said terms, which are not recited. The term foveated blending two portions of a data itself is not a term of art. While foveated rendering is a term of art, applicant appears to contemplate a related, but different use with foveated blending. Even if one took foveated to have a similar definition as to high/low resolution, it is not immediately clear as to how that ties into the first/second portions of the image data being blended based on foveated blending.
How the blended imaged is then adjusted based on chromatic aberration correction (CAC) to generate an adjusted blended image. How is the blended image adjusted? With respect to CAC, the specification sets forth “As used herein, the term “adjusting based on CAC” may refer to a pre-processing image correction algorithm(s) in an application processor that may be performed in a digital domain and that includes\from lens refraction”. As noted previously, the “may refer to” language does not impart a specific definition on the term or guide the interpretation of the limitation, since, the disclosure appears to contemplate other usage of the terms/other definitions for said terms, which are not recited. Even if it was recited, it is unclear as to how CAC is a pre-processing image correction algorithm that is being deployed after processing has been performed (foveated blending) and how that specific algorithm adjusts the blended image.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitations.
Claims 14 and 20 recite substantially similar rationale as to that set forth with respect to claim 1 and are accordingly rejected using substantially similar reason(s) as that set forth for claim 1.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are accordingly also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 2 and 15, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to: what constates the detailed enhancement as claimed. What is the detail enhancement algorithm upon which the detail of the blended image is enhanced? The originally filed disclosure sets forth in paragraph 27, “As used herein, the term “detail enhancement (DE)” may refer to image processing techniques by which image sharpness is increased and/or image edge details are amplified”. As noted previously, the “may refer to” language does not impart a specific definition on the term or guide the interpretation of the limitation, since, the disclosure appears to contemplate other usage of the terms/other definitions for said terms, which are not recited. Taking the wording into consideration, the claim language would remain unclear. It is not immediately clear as to what detail is being enhanced – does increasing the sharpness of the image enhance detail or does it increase sharpness? Enhancing detail is a broad subjective term – at what point is a detail enhanced? In addition, similar to claim 1, if the CAC is a pre-processing image correction algorithm, then it would be unclear how is it performed after performing detail enhancement? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claims 9 and 19, given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitation is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes correcting the blended image for aging by at least one of sub-pixel rendering (SPR) or demura. The originally filed disclosure sets forth “As used herein, the term "aging" may refer to a set or area of pixels / subpixels in which the pixels / subpixels are experiencing aging effects such as bum-in, image retention, static content burning, display long term brightness spatial inconsistency, mura, and/or the like, and "demura" may refer to one or more processes by which pixel-to-pixel response variability of a display panel is corrected, such as in sub-pixel formats and/or non-sub-pixel format. As used herein, the term "sub-pixel rendering (SPR)" may refer to rendering techniques that create appropriate patterns of pixels, for direct display of the data onto a display panel, that includes taking pixel-aligned red (R), green (G), and/or blue (B) data from the input and down-sampling either one of the color components to create the output data”. However, the “may refer to” language does not impart a specific definition on the term or guide the interpretation of the limitation, since, the disclosure appears to contemplate other usage of the terms/other definitions for said terms, which are not recited. Taking the wording into consideration, it remains unclear as to what is meant by “for aging”, since it would be unclear as to how pixels experience aging effects and how that is done by demura or SPR. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Since no prior art is being applied to the claims, based on the scope of the claims, claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2018/0137602 to Spitzer et al. teaches “the peripheral region upscaled to the higher resolution, at block 720 the display controller 610 performs the blending process 650 to spatially and temporally blend the foveal region and peripheral region at the edges of the foveal region to generate a modified representation of the original image generated at the rendering device 602. If the pixel array 612 implements a non-RGB pixel format and if early SPR was not implemented at the rendering device 602, at block 718 the display controller 610 performs SPR processes 656, 658 (FIG. 6) to convert the RGB pixel format of the foveated region and peripheral region (after upscaling) to the non-RGB format before the blending process 650 represented by block 720. Alternatively, an SPR process may be performed after the blending process to convert the pixel format of the modified representation of the original image from an RGB format to the non-RGB format”, see for instance, paragraph 63
US PG Publication 2025/0322482 to Rao et al. teaches a blending circuit includes foveated upscaling circuit, which is capable of performing scaling and upscaling of the foveal region and the peripheral region of image data to match the resolution of the image data with the resolution of the display device, see for instance, paragraph 71. Chromatic aberration correction circuit is capable of correcting and/or reducing chromatic artifacts in the image data that occur due to dispersion through the camera lens, see for instance, paragraph 88
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights