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 Final Office Action mailed on 11/19/2025 the Applicant has filed a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) on 2/17/2026 amending claim 1. Claims 2, 5-6 and 10 have been cancelled. Claims 11-16 have been added. Claims 1, 3-4, 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, 3-4, 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 Seo et al. (US 2016/0266390) and Shiohara (US 2016/0044221).
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; a magnification in the first optical system is lower than a magnification in the second optical system, and the magnification of at least one of the first and second optical systems is changed by adjusting an optical property of an optical element of the at least one of the first and second optical systems.
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 a magnification in the first optical system is lower than a magnification in the second optical system, and the magnification of at least one of the first and second optical systems is changed by adjusting an optical property of an optical element of the at least one of the first and second optical systems.
Seo discloses a magnification in a first optical system is lower than a magnification in a second optical system (para[0007]-para[0008]; para[0012]-para[0015]; para[0042]; para[0050]; para[0054]-para[0056]; para[0059]; see in Figs. 2, 4 and 5 “a picture generation unit (PGU) configured to output a picture according to control of the control unit; and an optical system configured to change an optical path of the picture outputted from the PGU so as to project the picture on the visible area of the driver”; “The optical system may include an aspheric mirror for determining the projection distances and magnifications of the projected pictures, and the aspheric mirror may be divided into two or more active regions having different aspheric coefficients”; e.g. “the magnification of the second active region [corresponding to the claimed first optical system] may be set to be smaller than the magnification of the first active region [corresponding to in the claimed second optical system]”).
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 Seo’s invention, to have a magnification in the first optical system is lower than a magnification in the second optical system, for the advantage of having that, when pictures are projected in different image regions with different projection distances, the sizes of the pictures seen by a user/driver are adjusted to a similar size, to prevent the user/driver from feeling that the difference in size of contents is changed as the user/driver varies his/her gaze (para[0059]).
However, the combination of Sako, Stoyanov and Seo does not appear to expressly disclose the magnification of at least one of the first and second optical systems is changed by adjusting an optical property of an optical element of the at least one of the first and second optical systems.
Shiohara discloses a magnification of an optical system is changed by adjusting an optical property of an optical element of the optical system (para[0107]-para[0109]; see Fig. 2; “The extent of the chromatic aberration of magnification changes by the parameter related to the optical properties such as the type of the lens unit 10, focal length or zooming rate, diaphragm value, or focus value (in particular, the type of the lens unit 10, focal length or zooming rate, and diaphragm value)”).
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 Seo’s combination, with the teachings in Shiohara’s invention, to have the magnification of at least one of the first and second optical systems is changed by adjusting an optical property of an optical element of the at least one of the first and second optical systems, for the advantage of changing content of aberration correction processing in accordance with the change in the optical properties and reduce the time required for image processing for correcting the aberration (para[0008]; para[0109]).
Regarding claim 3, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara 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 4, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the first region and the second region are projected on the same screen (regarding Figs. 2 and 9, see all the regions are displayed in same screen of display device DP).
Regarding claim 7, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara 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 9, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara 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, Seo and Shiohara 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, Seo and Shiohara 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, Seo and Shiohara 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, Seo and Shiohara 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 8 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), Seo et al. (US 2016/0266390) and Shiohara (US 2016/0044221), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masuya et al. (US 2017/0084056).
Regarding claim 8, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara 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). However, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara do not appear to expressly disclose the second image that is an image of the second image data includes an augmented reality image.
Masuya discloses a first image that is an image of a first image data includes an image of a character or an icon (para[0053]; see e.g. in Fig. 4, “an operation state image V3, and a regulation image V4”), and a second image that is an image of a second image data includes an augmented reality image (para[0002]; para[0004]; para[0053]-para[0054]; see e.g. in Fig. 4, augmented reality (AR) images including “guidance route image V1, a white line recognition image 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, Seo’s and Shiohara’s combination, with the teachings in Masuya’s invention, to have the second image that is an image of the second image data includes an augmented reality image, for the advantage of displaying information on a target outside a vehicle while superposing the information on scenery seen (para[0002]).
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), Seo et al. (US 2016/0266390) and Shiohara (US 2016/0044221), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akiba (US 2023/0111544).
Regarding claim 11, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). In addition, Sako discloses the first region is projected by the first optical system and the second region is projected by the second optical system onto the same screen (para[0042]; regarding Figs. 1-2 and 9, “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, and all the regions are displayed in same screen of display device DP, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed limitations).
However, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara 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, Seo’s and Shiohara’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), Seo et al. (US 2016/0266390) and Shiohara (US 2016/0044221), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Litvinov et al. (US 2013/0314550).
Regarding claim 12, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara disclose all the claim limitations as applied above (see claim 1). However, Sako, Stoyanov, Seo and Shiohara do not appear to 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 optical systems.
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, Seo’s and Shiohara’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 optical systems, 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 applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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