Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/972,216

ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND COLOR CALIBRATION METHOD THEROF

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 06, 2024
Examiner
SATTI, HUMAM M
Art Unit
2422
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
283 granted / 450 resolved
+4.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
474
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.8%
-35.2% vs TC avg
§103
60.1%
+20.1% vs TC avg
§102
21.2%
-18.8% vs TC avg
§112
8.5%
-31.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 450 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (KR 20070072324 A) in view of Kang (KR 20250123597 A). Page numbers and paragraphs cited in this office action are made in reference to attached documents included in this office action. Regarding claims 1 and 11, Cho discloses an electronic device comprising: a projection part, (page 10 2nd paragraph: in the image projection according to the fifth embodiment.” …etc) a user interface, (page 10 4th paragraph: “The setting processing operation for allowing the use of color-related information in calculating the color conversion information is appropriately added when setting the menu related to image projection during the menu setting operatio for the function setting of the mobile communication terminal and can be set by the user’s operation”); an illumination sensor, (page 10 5th paragraph: “In operation S940, illumination information of the surrounding environment is obtained through an illumination sensor.”) and at least one processor configured to (controller 160: page 4 4th paragraph: “The image projector 150 is a device configured to perform function of a general image projection in a mobile communication terminal, and may include a light source, a transparent display device, a lens, and the like. The image projection 150 performs a function of projecting the projected image output signal received from the controller 160 to the outside”.) identify whether an external light exists around the electronic device based on an illumination value sensed by the illumination sensor, (page 10 5th paragraph: “In operation S930, it is checked whether the illumination related information is present when calculating the color conversion information.”); control the projection part to project an image including a plurality of color patches on a projection surface, (page 8 3rd paragraph: note a test image comprising different color regions may be projected “Referring to the example of the test image required for the operation of Fig. 4 with reference to Fig5, the test image represents a test image including a plurality of colors and may have a structure in which various colors are displayed on one image. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the test image may include a plurality of test color regions appropriately provided, that is, a first region 510 of a first color, a second region 520 of a second color”…etc.) perform color calibration of an output image based on whether an external light exists around the electronic device and a color of a color patch among the plurality of color patches, (Page 10 5th paragraph discloses performing color adjustment considering whether external light exists: “In operation S930, it is checked whether the illumination related information is present when calculating the color conversion information.”) and control the projection part to project the output image for which the color calibration has been performed, (see page 11 1st paragraph disclosing projecting an output of color adjustment: “In operation S970, color conversion information (color conversion equation) is calculated using the obtained information. In this case, for example, when the ambient light is high, the image projected on the screen is blurred in contrast to the image, and therefore the color is darker..etc”.). However, a patch selected through the user interface is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Kang discloses a patch selected through the user interface, (page 4 3rd paragraph). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to correct projection images manually thereby allowing freedom on the selection of the final image output color and/or quality. Regarding claims 10 and 20, Cho discloses a camera, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: control the camera to obtain an image including the projection surface, and identify colors of the plurality of color patches based on colors of the projection surface included in the obtained image, (page 6 3rd paragraph: “In addition, the operation of acquiring color conversion information in operation S230 may be performed by acquiring a color of a screen area on which an image projected through a camera and determining appropriate color conversion information using the obtained color information”. …etc. page 8 3rd paragraph: note a test image comprising different color regions may be projected “Referring to the example of the test image required for the operation of Fig. 4 with reference to Fig5, the test image represents a test image including a plurality of colors and may have a structure in which various colors are displayed on one image. For example, as illustrated in Fig. 5, the test image may include a plurality of test color regions appropriately provided, that is, a first region 510 of a first color, a second region 520 of a second color”… etc.). Claim(s) 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho in view of Kang in view of Arai (Pub 20130307866). Regarding claims 9 and 19, the combination discloses claims 1 and 11. However, wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on receiving a user input through the user interface selecting a color patch among a plurality of first color patches, obtain a plurality of second color patches by adjusting a chroma of the color of the selected color patch among the plurality of first color patches, control the projection part to project an image including the plurality of second color patches on the projection surface, and based on receiving a user input through the user interface selecting a color patch among the plurality of second color patches, perform the color calibration of the output image based on the color of the selected color patch among the plurality of second color patches is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Arai discloses a UI display unit providing a user interface used to input a plurality of adjustment values required to color-match display colors of a plurality of tones on a display device with corresponding target colors of a plurality of tones wherein the at least one processor is configured to: based on receiving a user input through the user interface selecting a color patch among a plurality of first color patches, obtain a plurality of second color patches by adjusting a chroma of the color of the selected color patch among the plurality of first color patches, control the projection part to project an image including the plurality of second color patches on the projection surface, and based on receiving a user input through the user interface selecting a color patch among the plurality of second color patches, perform the color calibration of the output image based on the color of the selected color patch among the plurality of second color patches, (see correction parameter calculation processing based on user input and determining chromacity values based on selected color patch, Para. [0097-0102]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Arai for the benefit of generating a uniform color display and allowing a user to visually modify colors according to a user’s liking. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2-8 and 12-18 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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. HUMAM M. SATTI Examiner Art Unit 2422 /BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 06, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598360
VIDEO CAPTIONING GENERATION SYSTEM AND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589716
RAIN SENSOR SYSTEM, VEHICLE AND METHOD FOR DETECTING RAIN
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12587619
METHOD OF ADJUSTING PROJECTION IMAGE, PROJECTION SYSTEM, AND CONTROL APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12563287
Local generation of commands to a vehicle sensor
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12563164
PROJECTION METHOD AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
63%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+17.5%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 450 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month