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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner cites particular columns or paragraphs, and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
In reply to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 3/11/2026 the Applicant has filed a response on 6/8/2026 amending claims 1 and 11-12. Claims 2, 4-6 and 10 have been cancelled. No claim has been added. Claims 1, 3, 7-9 and 11-16 are pending in this application.
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, 3, 7-9, 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako (US 2018/0096658), in view of Stoyanov et al. (US 2020/0262339), and further in view of Laine et al. (FR 3109224 A1) (machine translation provided by the examiner and referenced throughout the rejection), and Kusafuka (US 2022/0197053).
Regarding claim 1, Sako discloses a circuit device configured to control a display device including a first light source, a second light source, and a display panel (see display apparatus 1 in Figs. 1-2 including “the display device DP, the light emitter BL, and a chip on glass (COG) 19 serving as a driver integrated circuit (IC)”, wherein “image processor PR controls the display device DP and the light emitter BL“ including multiple light sources 6a each included in a corresponding light-emitting segment LSEG, as shown in Fig. 4; para[0042]; para[0045]-para[0048]; para[0073]), the circuit device comprising:
a region determination circuit configured to determine a region to which a pixel belongs (para[0075]; para[0096]-para[0097]; para[0111]; see Figs. 4-5 and 9-10; “The display region 21 is divided into a plurality of display segments DSEG” (Fig. 5); “The display segments each include one or a plurality of pixels Pix”; “The display segments DSEG are arranged so as to correspond to the respective light-emitting segments LSEG” (Figs. 4-5); “The image processor PR divides the display region 21 into a plurality of rectangular display blocks DBLK.sub.0 to DBLK.sub.11” (Fig. 9); “The display blocks DBLK.sub.0 to DBLK.sub.11 each include one or a plurality of display segments DSEG” (Figs. 5 and 9); “The image processor PR divides the light-emitting region 31 into a plurality of rectangular light-emitting blocks LBLK.sub.0 to LBLK.sub.11” (Fig. 10); “The light-emitting blocks LBLK.sub.0 to LBLK.sub.11 each include one or a plurality of light-emitting segments LSEG” (Figs. 4 and 10); “Control data indicating how to divide the light emitter BL into the light-emitting blocks LBLK.sub.0 to LBLK.sub.11 is the same as the control data indicating how to divide the display region 21 into the display blocks DBLK.sub.0 to DBLK.sub.11”); and
a color correction circuit configured to perform color correction on input image
data based on the region determination result (para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”; “If two adjacent light-emitting segments have different amounts of light emission”, “The image processor PR performs luminance distribution processing at the segment boundary in accordance with luminance information on the pixels in two display segments included in respective two adjacent display blocks, thereby determining the luminance of the pixels in the display segments”; “If the amounts of light emission from two light sources 6a corresponding to two display segments DSEG included in respective two adjacent display blocks are different, the image processor PR according to the present embodiment performs first correction and second correction”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, correspondingly; note that the claimed color correction, as defined by the applicant in the disclosure of the instant application, refers to luminance correction), wherein
light from the first light source controlled based on a first global dimming value
enters a first region in the display panel (para[0125]-para[0126]; regarding Figs. 9 and 10, e.g. “In the display block DBLK.sub.6, the image object 107 indicating the state of transmission is displayed”, “The amount of light emission necessary for displaying the image object 107 indicating the state of transmission is 70% of the rated light emission amount as a panel, for example”, and “The image processor PR controls the amounts of light emission from the light-emitting segments” correspondingly included in the light-emitting block LBLK.sub.6), and light from the second light source
controlled based on a second global dimming value enters a second region in the
display panel (para[0120]-para[0122]; regarding Figs. 9 and 10, e.g. “In the display block DBLK.sub.4, the image object 105 of a speed meter is displayed”, “The amount of light emission necessary for displaying the image object 105 of a speed meter is 100% of the rated light emission amount as a panel, for example”, and “The image processor PR controls the amounts of light emission from the light-emitting segments” correspondingly included in the light-emitting block LBLK.sub.4),
the first and second global dimming values are generated by an external
processing device and are input to the circuit device (para[0058]; para[0120]-para[0122]; para[0125]-para[0126]; para[0184]; since “The image processor PR outputs, to the light emitter BL, a light emission amount control signal for controlling the amount of light emission in accordance with the image data and the control data received from the host HST”, and “adjusts image data in accordance with the image data and the control data received from the host HST and outputs the adjusted image data to the driver 19a”, it is clear that both claimed global dimming values are input from the external processing device HST),
the color correction circuit is further configured to perform:
color correction on first image data of the input image data to be displayed in the first region based on the first global dimming value (para[0125]-para[0126]; para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”; based on this, “If two adjacent light-emitting segments have different amounts of light emission”, and “If the amounts of light emission from two light sources 6a corresponding to two display segments DSEG included in respective two adjacent display blocks are different, the image processor PR according to the present embodiment performs first correction and second correction”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, for the display block DBLK.sub.6); and
color correction on second image data of the input image data to be displayed in the second region based on the second global dimming value (para[0120]-para[0122]; para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]; see Figs. 9-10; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”; based on this, “If two adjacent light-emitting segments have different amounts of light emission”, and “If the amounts of light emission from two light sources 6a corresponding to two display segments DSEG included in respective two adjacent display blocks are different, the image processor PR according to the present embodiment performs first correction and second correction”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, for the display block DBLK.sub.4),
the first region is a region projected by a first optical system, and the second
region is a region projected by a second optical system (para[0042]; “The display device DP may be… a digital micromirror device (DMD (registered trademark)), for example”, and thus, each of the regions are regions projected by optical systems, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations).
However, Sako does not appear to expressly disclose the first and second global dimming values are determined by the external processing device based on ambient light detection information from an ambient light sensor; the light from the first light source which passed the first region of the display panel travels to only a first concave mirror and is reflected by the first concave mirror to form first reflected light, and the first reflected light is projected to a first projection region on a screen, the light from the second light source which passed the second region of the display panel travels to only a second concave mirror and is reflected by the second concave mirror to form second reflected light, and the second reflected light is projected to a second projection region on the screen, a magnification in the first concave mirror is lower than a magnification in the second concave mirror, and the magnification of at least one of the first and second concave mirrors is changed by adjusting a magnification rate of the at least one of the first and second concave mirrors.
Stoyanov discloses global dimming values determined by an external processing device based on ambient light detection information from an ambient light sensor (regarding Figs. 1-2, dimming values are determined by processing unit 28, external to processing unit 24 (analogous to the claimed circuit device), based on ambient light detected from a sensor included in component 26; “input signal 25 received by the second processing unit 28 may be based upon output from a sensor” that measures “ambient light level”, and “may represent measurement of a dimming level value”; “In response to the one or more input signals 25,… the second processing unit 28 generates and transmits one or more output signals 27 received by the first processing unit 24 representative of… light intensity of the backlight 38 as a dimming value”; para[0033]-para[0035]; para[0076]-para[0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Sako’s invention, with the teachings in Stoyanov’s invention, to have the first and second global dimming values are determined by the external processing device based on ambient light detection information from an ambient light sensor, for the advantage of ensure accessibility, visibility and recognition of displayed indicators by e.g. a user of a vehicle in both daylight and nighttime conditions and ensure safety (para[0053]).
However, the combination of Sako and Stoyanov does not appear to expressly disclose the light from the first light source which passed the first region of the display panel travels to only a first concave mirror and is reflected by the first concave mirror to form first reflected light, and the first reflected light is projected to a first projection region on a screen, the light from the second light source which passed the second region of the display panel travels to only a second concave mirror and is reflected by the second concave mirror to form second reflected light, and the second reflected light is projected to a second projection region on the screen, a magnification in the first concave mirror is lower than a magnification in the second concave mirror, and the magnification of at least one of the first and second concave mirrors is changed by adjusting a magnification rate of the at least one of the first and second concave mirrors.
Laine discloses light from a first light source which passed a first region of a display panel travels to only a first concave mirror and is reflected by the first concave mirror to form first reflected light, and the first reflected light is projected to a first projection region on a screen (see Figs. 1-2; “The projection module 110 comprises a projector 111 comprising a light source (for example, a laser diode or a high power LED) emitting a beam directed towards a display panel 112 (for example, an LCD panel or a matrix of micro-mirrors DMD) represented schematically in FIG. 2”; a “magnifying concave mirror 115 arranged so as to return only and with a predetermined magnification the second light beam F2 towards the windshield 5”; see light from a first light source which passed a first zone Z of display panel 112 travels to only a first concave mirror 115 and is reflected by the first concave mirror 115 to form first reflected light F2 projected to a first projection region on windshield 5), light from a second light source which passed a second region of the display panel travels to only a second concave mirror and is reflected by the second concave mirror to form second reflected light, and the second reflected light is projected to a second projection region on the screen (see Figs. 1-2; a “magnifying concave mirror 114 arranged so as to reflect only and with a predetermined magnification the first light beam F1 towards the windshield 5”; see light from a second light source which passed a second zone Z of display panel 112 travels to only a second concave mirror 114 and is reflected by the second concave mirror 115 to form second reflected light F1 projected to a second projection region on windshield 5), a magnification in the first concave mirror is lower than a magnification in the second concave mirror (with the concave mirror 115, a user “perceives the information y being contained in a second virtual image V2 positioned in his field of vision in front of this windshield 5 and at a second predetermined distance d2 from his eyes Y, less than the first distance d1 and advantageously between 1.5 and 3 meters (preferably, between 2 and 3 meters)” (see Fig. 3); with the concave mirror 114, the user “perceives the information y being contained in a first virtual image V1 positioned in his field of vision in front of this windshield 5 and at a first predetermined distance d1 from his eyes, the latter being greater than 5 meters and advantageously between 8 and 10 meters (see Fig. 3); accordingly, a magnification in concave mirror 115 is lower than a magnification in concave mirror 114).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Sako’s and Stoyanov’s combination, with the teachings in Laine’s invention, to have the light from the first light source which passed the first region of the display panel travels to only a first concave mirror and is reflected by the first concave mirror to form first reflected light, and the first reflected light is projected to a first projection region on a screen, the light from the second light source which passed the second region of the display panel travels to only a second concave mirror and is reflected by the second concave mirror to form second reflected light, and the second reflected light is projected to a second projection region on the screen, a magnification in the first concave mirror is lower than a magnification in the second concave mirror, for the advantage of having that corresponding virtual images produced by respective light reflected by each concave mirror do not overlap in the field of vision of a viewer (page 3, second paragraph of machine translation).
However, the combination of Sako, Stoyanov and Laine does not appear to expressly disclose the magnification of at least one of the first and second concave mirrors is changed by adjusting a magnification rate of the at least one of the first and second concave mirrors.
Kusafuka discloses magnification of a concave mirror is changed by adjusting a magnification rate of the concave mirror (para[0027]-para[0028]; para[0055]; regarding Figs. 2 and 7, “first mirror 18a is a concave mirror having optical power”, and “optical system 30 includes the optical element 18 and the optical member 15”; given that “As the distance between the projection target object and the concave mirror approaches f, the magnification of the virtual image 14 increases and also the rate of change in the magnification of the virtual image 14 with respect to the change in the distance increases”, it is clear that magnification of concave mirror 18a is changes with the rate of change in the magnification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Sako’s, Stoyanov’s and Laine’s combination, with the teachings in Kusafuka’s invention, to have the magnification of at least one of the first and second concave mirrors is changed by adjusting a magnification rate of the at least one of the first and second concave mirrors, for the advantage of using an easily adjustable parameter since it is directly related to a distance between a projection target object and the concave mirror(s) (para[0055]).
Regarding claim 3, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the first global dimming value is smaller than the second global dimming value (para[0120]-para[0122]; para[0125]-para[0126]; regarding Figs. 9-10, e.g. “The amount of light emission necessary for displaying the image object 107 indicating the state of transmission is 70% of the rated light emission amount as a panel, for example” (for light-emitting block LBLK.sub.6), and “The amount of light emission necessary for displaying the image object 105 of a speed meter is 100% of the rated light emission amount as a panel, for example” (for light-emitting block LBLK.sub.4)).
Regarding claim 7, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses a light source control circuit configured to control the first light source based on the first global dimming value (para[0125]-para[0126]; regarding Figs. 1-2 and 9-10, e.g. “The amount of light emission necessary for displaying the image object 107 indicating the state of transmission is 70% of the rated light emission amount as a panel, for example”, and “The image processor PR controls the amounts of light emission from the light-emitting segments” correspondingly included in the light-emitting block LBLK.sub.6) and control the second light source based on the second global dimming value (para[0120]-para[0122]; regarding Figs. 1-2 and 9-10, e.g. “The amount of light emission necessary for displaying the image object 105 of a speed meter is 100% of the rated light emission amount as a panel, for example”, and “The image processor PR controls the amounts of light emission from the light-emitting segments” correspondingly included in the light-emitting block LBLK.sub.4).
Regarding claim 8, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the first image that is an image of the first image data includes an image of a character or an icon (para[0096]; see in Fig. 9, “The display block DBLK.sub.6 corresponds to an image object 107 indicating the state of transmission”, e.g. image of character D).
In addition, Laine discloses a first image that is an image of a first image data includes an image of a character or an icon (as shown in Fig. 3, “The information I2 and I3 contained in the virtual images V2 and V3 are essentially textual information”), and a second image that is an image of a second image data includes an augmented reality image (“As illustrated by FIG. 3, the information contained in the virtual image V1 is of the “augmented reality” type, that is to say that it consists of non-textual indications I1 (lines, arrows, frames, etc.) which are visually superimposed on surrounding objects in the real world (vehicles, demarcation lines of traffic lanes, road markings, etc.) located in the driver's field of vision”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the second image that is an image of the second image data includes an augmented reality image, for the advantage of presenting essential information in order to alert a viewer/driver of immediate dangers in the surroundings (page 2, eleventh paragraph of machine translation).
Regarding claim 9, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses a display system comprising: the circuit device according to claim 1; and the display device (see display apparatus/system 1 in Figs. 1-2 including “the display device DP, the light emitter BL, and a chip on glass (COG) 19 serving as a driver integrated circuit (IC)”; para[0048]).
Regarding claim 13, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the color correction circuit is further configured to perform per-region color correction by:
(i) applying a first correction uniformly to pixel values of an entirety of the first image data to be displayed in the first region, the first correction being implemented by multiplying the pixel values by a value corresponding to an inverse of the first global dimming value (para[0125]-para[0126]; para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, for the display block DBLK.sub.6); and
(ii) applying a second correction uniformly to pixel values of an entirety of the second image data to be displayed in the second region, the second correction being implemented by multiplying the pixel values by a value corresponding to an inverse of the second global dimming value (para[0120]-para[0122]; para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]; see Figs. 9-10; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, for the display block DBLK.sub.4).
Regarding claim 14, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the color correction circuit is further configured to independently perform:
first luminance adjustment for the first region based on the first global dimming value (para[0080]; para[0125]-para[0126]; para[0144]-para[0150]; “If two adjacent light-emitting segments have different amounts of light emission”, “The image processor PR performs luminance distribution processing at the segment boundary in accordance with luminance information on the pixels in two display segments included in respective two adjacent display blocks, thereby determining the luminance of the pixels in the display segments”; “first correction is performed on the pixels Pix in the first display segment corresponding to the light source 6a having a relatively large amount of light emission” for the display block DBLK.sub.6; note that the claimed color correction, as defined by the applicant in the disclosure of the instant application, refers to luminance correction); and
second luminance adjustment for the second region based on the second global dimming value (para[0080]; para[0144]-para[0150]; “If two adjacent light-emitting segments have different amounts of light emission”, “The image processor PR performs luminance distribution processing at the segment boundary in accordance with luminance information on the pixels in two display segments included in respective two adjacent display blocks, thereby determining the luminance of the pixels in the display segments”; “second correction is performed on the pixels Pix in the second display segment” for the display block DBLK.sub.4; note that the claimed color correction, as defined by the applicant in the disclosure of the instant application, refers to luminance correction).
Regarding claim 15, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the external processing device is configured to write the first global dimming value and the second global dimming value into a register section of the circuit device (para[0045]; para[0058]; para[0092]; para[0184]; para[0203]; see Figs. 9 and 14, “information can be restricted to some extent by recording the sampled luminance distribution in a form of a look up table (LUT)”, e.g. “luminance distribution of the respective light sources 6a in accordance with the amounts of light emission indicated by the light emission amount control signals”; “The image processor PR according to the present embodiment is supplied with image data for displaying the image illustrated in FIG. 9 from the host HST” and in the image processor PR “the segment necessary luminance calculator 51 calculates the luminance necessary for the light-emitting segments LSEG in accordance with the image data supplied from the host HST”; based on this, it is clear that the host HST writes amounts of light emission for corresponding segments into the image processor PR), and
the color correction circuit is further configured to perform per-region color correction by:
(i) applying a first correction to pixel values of an entirety of the first image data to be displayed in the first region based on a value set in the register section corresponding to the first global dimming value (para[0125]-para[0126]; para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]-para[0148]; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, for the display block DBLK.sub.6; e.g. “In the first correction, the image processor PR changes the LUT so as to decrease the output gradation values of the pixels Pix”, and thus, based on values in the LUT); and
(ii) applying a second correction to pixel values of an entirety of the second image data to be displayed in the second region based on a value set in the register section corresponding to the second global dimming value (para[0120]-para[0122]; para[0144]-para[0145]; para[0147]; para[0149] see Figs. 9-10; “The image processor PR performs calculation of Expression… Pixel Output Gradation Value=100(%)/Amount of Light Emission in Light Segment×Pixel Input Gradation Value” to “obtain a pixel output gradation value to be output to the driver 19a”, “correcting the output gradation values of… pixels Pix”, for the display block DBLK.sub.4; e.g. “In the second correction, the image processor PR changes the LUT so as to increase the output gradation values of the pixels Pix”, and thus, based on values in the LUT).
Regarding claim 16, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the circuit device includes a first serial interface circuit functioning as a slave and a second serial interface circuit functioning as a master (para[0183]; para[0205]; para[0290]; regarding Fig. 14, and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations, see segment necessary luminance corrector 52 (claimed first serial interface functioning as a slave) and light emission amount calculator 53 (claimed second serial interface circuit functioning as a master)), and
the first and second serial interface circuits have a bypass bridge path therebetween to output the first and second global dimming values to a light source driver (para[0183]; para[0205]; para[0290]-para[0291]; regarding Fig. 14, and based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations, see connection between the segment necessary luminance corrector 52 and the light emission amount calculator 53 to output “amounts of light emission from the light sources 6a” and “the light emission amount control signals for controlling the amounts of light emission from the light sources 6a to the light emitter BL”).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako (US 2018/0096658), in view of Stoyanov et al. (US 2020/0262339), Laine et al. (FR 3109224 A1) (machine translation provided by the examiner and referenced throughout the rejection), and Kusafuka (US 2022/0197053), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akiba (US 2023/0111544).
Regarding claim 11, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). However, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka do not appear to expressly disclose the region determination circuit is further configured to determine, based on pixel coordinates in the input image data, whether each pixel belongs to the first region or the second region.
Akiba discloses a region determination circuit configured to determine, based on pixel coordinates in input image data, whether each pixel belongs to a first region or a second region (para[0039]; para[0065]-para[0070]; regarding Figs. 4 and 11-12, “the image data to be analyzed is the input image data IMA”, and “The coordinate counter 112 counts the pixel coordinates GZA2 = (u2, v2) of the pixel data written in the storage circuit 115”; “The coordinate conversion circuit 121 of the image analysis circuit 120 converts the pixel coordinates (u2, v2) output by the coordinate counter 112 into movement destination coordinates GZB2 = (x2, y2) which are coordinates on the output image data IMB”; “determination circuit 122 determines that the movement destination coordinates (x2, y2) output by the coordinate conversion circuit 121 belong to which display area, that is a display area corresponding to which light emitting element”; “determination circuit 122 determines which display area AR among the plurality of display areas AR the movement destination coordinates (x2, y2) belong to,… based on the pixel data of the input image data IMA at the pixel coordinates (u2, v2)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Sako’s, Stoyanov’s, Laine’s and Kusafuka’s combination, with the teachings in Akiba’s invention, to have the region determination circuit is further configured to determine, based on pixel coordinates in the input image data, whether each pixel belongs to the first region or the second region, for the advantage of determining whether a display area has a transparent color in a HUD display using input image data IMA as the image data to be analyzed, so that the display area becomes an area that is originally transparent rather than being displayed whitish in the HUD display, and the area without display objects in the HUD display becomes the area that is originally transparent, and visibility of a background does not decrease (para[0073]; para[0084]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako (US 2018/0096658), in view of Stoyanov et al. (US 2020/0262339), Laine et al. (FR 3109224 A1) (machine translation provided by the examiner and referenced throughout the rejection), and Kusafuka (US 2022/0197053), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Litvinov et al. (US 8,953,049).
Regarding claim 12, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). However, Sako, Stoyanov, Laine and Kusafuka do not appear to expressly disclose the first and second global dimming values are adjusted based on a difference in optical characteristics including the magnifications of the first and second concave mirrors.
Litvinov discloses global dimming values adjusted based on a difference in optical characteristics including magnifications of optical systems (column 8, lines 58-63; see claims 6 and 15; regarding Figs. 1A and 4-5, “operation 416 may derive a correction matrix that adds equal amounts of intensity to each color element for each pixel in order to produce a brighter picture” and “the projection management module 158 may apply the pixel scaling factor to each pixel”; such intensity adjustments “based on the different optical properties” of optical system(s), which clearly include magnifications since here the system is a projection system that projects magnified images on a surface, and such surface affects magnifications of different regions of the surface).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings in Sako’s, Stoyanov’s, Laine’s and Kusafuka’s combination, with the teachings in Litvinov’s invention, to have the first and second global dimming values are adjusted based on a difference in optical characteristics including the magnifications of the first and second concave mirror, in the combination, for the advantage of improving user experience by minimizing that a projected image differs from user’s expectations (column 1, lines 15-31).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GLORYVID FIGUEROA-GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5506. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, Monday -Friday, Eastern Time.
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, Nitin Patel can be reached on 571-272-7677. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GLORYVID FIGUEROA-GIBSON/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
/NITIN PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2628
Prosecution Insights