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 .
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, 9, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajjar (US 2011/0298820 A1) in view of Park (US 2015/0379779 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hajjar discloses a display comprising one or more optical components which cause variations in brightness at different portions of the display; (Figure 19 and paragraph 0095, display with optical bow distortions with non-uniform brightness caused by the distortions) a display controller configured to apply a plurality of different brightness correction values to a plurality of pixel values in image data to create corrected image data, (Paragraph 0097, digital processor for image warping so that pixel brightness appears at a correct location) and a light source having a plurality of sub-light sources, (Paragraphs 0037-0040, various types of light sources including a laser used with color light-emitting phosphor materials in red, green, and blue colors to emit light) wherein the display is configured to show a user an image corresponding to the corrected image data so as to reduce the brightness variations, (Paragraph 0097, reading out the image for display so that pixel brightness appears at the correct location on a screen) wherein each of the plurality of sub-light sources are linked to a respective region of the display, (Figure 1, stripes of red, green, and blue phosphors arranged at different regions in the screen) and wherein the display is configured to show the user the image corresponding to the corrected image data using light from the light source (Figures 1 and 18 and paragraph 0097, the warped image appears on the screen using the laser with color phosphors).
Hajjar does not clearly disclose a virtual, augmented, or mixed reality display system. Park discloses a screen for displaying augmented reality content (Paragraph 0003). Park’s technique for displaying augmented reality on a screen would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the display of warped imagery that corrects for non-uniform brightness of a display screen due to distortions of Hajjar and the results would have been predictable in the warping of augmented reality content for display that corrects for non-uniform brightness of a display screen due to distortions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 10, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajjar (US 2011/0298820 A1) in view of Park (US 2015/0379779 A1) and further in view of Lee (US 2010/0039457 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hajjar in view of Park discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Hajjar in view of Park does not clearly disclose wherein the display controller is configured to apply a brightness correction value by multiplying a brightness correction value from among the plurality of different brightness correction values and a corresponding pixel value from among the plurality of pixel values in the image data. Lee discloses brightness correction by multiplying brightness correction information with brightness values of pixels in an image (Paragraph 0051). Hajjar in view of Park discloses a system for modifying an image to correct for brightness due to optical distortions which differed from the claimed system by the substitution of a step of multiplying a brightness correction value with pixel values in image data. Lee discloses the substituted step of multiplying a brightness correction value with pixel values in image data. As a result, both functions were known in the art to enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify and image to correct displayed brightness. Hajjar in view of Park’s warping of an image to correct for brightness uniformity when displaying augmented reality could have been substituted with Lee’s multiplication of brightness correction values with brightness of pixels of an image and the results would have been predictable, resulting in multiplication of brightness correction values with brightness values of pixels of an augmented reality image for correcting brightness uniformity. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses wherein the plurality of different brightness correction values are determined based on a calibration image shown on the display (Paragraph 0020, determining brightness correction information based on the brightness of the image displayed on the display).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 11, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Claim(s) 4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hajjar (US 2011/0298820 A1) in view of Park (US 2015/0379779 A1) and further in view of Ishida et al. (US 2013/0249780 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Hajjar in view of Park discloses all limitations as discussed in claim 1. Hajjar in view of Park does not clearly disclose wherein the plurality of different brightness correction values are stored in a lookup table. Ishida discloses brightness correction values can be stored in a lookup table (Paragraph 0181).
Ishida’s technique of storing brightness correction values in a lookup table would have bene recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the amounts of warping for pixels in an image to correct for brightness uniformity of a display with distortions. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 13-15, 19, and 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not clearly disclose the system of claim 4, wherein a resolution of the stored lookup table is less than a resolution of the image data, and the display controller is configured to expand the lookup table to the match the resolution of the image data.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not clearly disclose the system of claim 1, wherein the display comprises: a plurality of waveguides for guiding a plurality of color components of the corrected image data; and a plurality of light redirecting elements to re-direct light from the waveguides to the user's eye as a plurality of exit beams, wherein there are variations between the plurality of exit beams which cause the variations in the brightness of the displayed image at different portions of the display.
Regarding claim 13, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 5 is applied.
Regarding claims 14 and 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, the prior art does not clearly disclose the system of claim 17, wherein the plurality of different correction values are stored in a lookup table, wherein a resolution of the stored lookup table is less than a resolution of the image data, and wherein the display controller is configured to expand the lookup table to the match the resolution of the image data.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsuyama et al. (US 6,587,581 B1) discloses performing brightness correction by linearly transforming the brightness value of an image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619
Prosecution Insights