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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4, 14-18, and 25 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-4, 15-19, and 23 of copending Application No. 19/004123 (reference application) in view of Radiant Vision Systems (“Measuring and Correcting MicroLED Display Uniformity”) (Hereinafter referred to as RVS). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. It is noted that there is a difference between Claim 1 of the current application and copending application as the current application requires “fitting a mapping relationship for each of display pixels of the display according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of images . . . ” and “determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels” instead of the copending application which teaches fusing the first plurality of images and determining a correction scheme based on the fused image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify copending Application No. 19/004123 to include the limitation of fitting a mapping relationship and determining a correction scheme based on the mapping relationship.
The motivation to combine would have been obvious as copending Application No. 19/004123 and RVS are both arts within the same field of correcting display non-uniformity (See RVS Pages 1-4). RVS teaches that fitting a mapping relationship between the display pixels and the first plurality of images and using that to determine a correction scheme is a known and common technique for correcting non-uniformity for displays (See RVS Page 4).
Claim Mapping between the current application and the copending Application No. 19/004123
Current Application
1
2
3
4
14
Application No. 19/004123
1 and RVS
2
3 and RVS
4
15
Current Application
15
16
17
18
25
Application No. 19/004123
16 and RVS
17
18
19 and RVS
23 and RVS
Below is a Limitation Mapping between Claim 1 of the current application and Claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/004123
Current Application
Copending Application No. 19/004123
A method for correcting nonuniformity of a near-eye display (NED), comprising:
A method for correcting nonuniformity of a near-eye display (NED) having a first display and a second display, the method comprising:
generating and displaying a first plurality of test patterns for a display of the NED;
generating and displaying a test pattern for the first display and the second display;
obtaining, in response to the first plurality of test patterns, a first plurality of images at an end of an optical path coupled to the display;
obtaining, in response to the test pattern, a first image at an end of a first optical path coupled to the first display and a second image at an end of a second optical path coupled to the second display;
fitting a mapping relationship for each of display pixels of the display according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of images, the mapping relationship of a display pixel mapping the display pixel and a corresponding image pixel in each image of the first plurality of images; and
See RVS
determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on
determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on
the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels.
See RVS
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 1-2, 14-17, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer et al. (US 20210407365 A1) in view of Radiant Vision Systems (“Measuring and Correcting MicroLED Display Uniformity”) (Hereinafter referred to as RVS).
Regarding Claim 1, Messer discloses A method for correcting nonuniformity of a near-eye display (NED), comprising: (See Abstract, “Disclosed are techniques for improving the color uniformity of a display of a display device.” Also [0056], “Many types of displays, including augmented reality (AR) displays, suffer from color non-uniformity across the user's field-of-view (FoV).” Lastly see Fig. 1 showing the AR display, which can be considered as a “near-eye display”.)
generating and displaying a first plurality of test patterns for a display of the NED; (See [0061], “For example, a first image may be captured of a display while displaying a red image using a red illumination source, a second image may be captured of the same display while displaying a green image using a green illumination source, and a third image may be captured of the same display while displaying a blue image using a blue illumination source.” In this case, the red, green, and blue images displayed correspond to “a first plurality of test patterns for a display of the NED”.)
obtaining, in response to the first plurality of test patterns, a first plurality of images at an end of an optical path coupled to the display; (See [0059], “In the illustrated example, cameras 108 are positioned at user eye positions relative to displays 112 of a wearable device 102.” Further see [0061], “While each of displays 112 is displaying each image, the corresponding camera may capture the displayed image.” Lastly, see [0061], “For example, a first image may be captured of a display while displaying a red image using a red illumination source, a second image may be captured of the same display while displaying a green image using a green illumination source, and a third image may be captured of the same display while displaying a blue image using a blue illumination source.” In this case the captured first, second, and third images correspond to “a first plurality of images at an end of an optical path coupled to the display.”)
determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on correction matrices derived from captured images. (See [0072], “One goal of color uniformity correction may be to minimize the RMS color error as much as possible over a range of eye positions within the eye box while minimizing negative impacts to display power consumption, display brightness, and color bit-depth. The outputs of method 400 may be a set of correction matrices C.sub.R,G,B containing values between 0 and 1 at each pixel of the display for each color channel and a plurality of target source currents I.sub.R, I.sub.G, and I.sub.B.” Also see Fig. 4 showing that the captured images 420 for each of the color channels are used to derive the correction matrices 456.)
However, Messer fails to explicitly disclose fitting a mapping relationship for each of display pixels of the display according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of images, the mapping relationship of a display pixel mapping the display pixel and a corresponding image pixel in each image of the first plurality of images; and
determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels.
RVS additionally teaches generating and displaying a first plurality of test patterns for a display of the NED; obtaining, in response to the first plurality of test patterns, a first plurality of images at an end of an optical path coupled to the display; (See Page 4, “Measure each subpixel in the display to calculate luminance values at each pixel coordinate location using a high-resolution imaging colorimeter. Test images are driven to the display to target subpixels of each color set. These images enable measurements and correction factors to be computed for each set. For example, a green test image can be driven to the display to illuminate all green subpixels. An imaging colorimeter measures and records the output of each green subpixel. This is repeated for all primaries (red, green, blue) and, usually, white.” In this case, the test images correspond to the “first plurality of test patterns” and once the test images are driven to the display and measured, that would correspond to the “first plurality of images”.)
fitting a mapping relationship for each of display pixels of the display according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of images, the mapping relationship of a display pixel mapping the display pixel and a corresponding image pixel in each image of the first plurality of images; and (See Page 4, “Measure each subpixel in the display to calculate luminance values at each pixel coordinate location using a high-resolution imaging colorimeter. Test images are driven to the display to target subpixels of each color set. These images enable measurements and correction factors to be computed for each set. For example, a green test image can be driven to the display to illuminate all green subpixels. An imaging colorimeter measures and records the output of each green subpixel. This is repeated for all primaries (red, green, blue) and, usually, white.”
Further See Page 4, “Load measurement data from each display pixel’s coordinate position into a coefficient calculator. Correction factors are calculated to normalize luminance and chromaticity discrepancies between pixels in the display using test analysis software.”
In this case, RVS teaches to measure each subpixel at each pixel coordinate location (display pixels of the display), with the measurements being based on the driven test images (the first plurality of images) which outputs red, blue, and green subpixels.
Each pixel coordinate location (display pixels) would implicitly have a mapped relationship between it and the driven test images (the first plurality of images), as each pixel coordinate location would have a measurement value for each of corresponding pixel within the driven test images (mapping the display pixel and a corresponding image pixel in each image of the first plurality of images). This would also be considered as according to the test images (test patterns) as the driven test images are derived from the red, blue, and green test images.)
determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels. (Further See Page 4, “Load measurement data from each display pixel’s coordinate position into a coefficient calculator. Correction factors are calculated to normalize luminance and chromaticity discrepancies between pixels in the display using test analysis software.” Loading the measurement data from each display pixel’s coordinate position would correspond to the correction scheme being based on “the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Messer with RVS to include fitting a mapping relationship and determining a correction scheme based on the mapping relationship.
The motivation to combine Messer with RVS would have been obvious as both arts are within the same field of correcting display non-uniformity (See RVS Pages 1-4). RVS teaches that fitting a mapping relationship between the display pixels and the first plurality of images and using that to determine a correction scheme is a known and common technique for correcting non-uniformity for displays (See RVS Page 4).
Regarding Claim 2, Messer in view of RVS discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the nonuniformity is caused by the optical path. (See Messer [0056], “Other factors which may result in color non-uniformity include variations in the grating structure across the eyepiece, variations in the alignment of optical elements within the system, systematic differences between the light paths of the display channels, among other possibilities.”)
Regarding Claim 14, Messer in view of RVS discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the first plurality of images is represented in an XYZ chroma space. (See Messer [0060], “For example, the captured images may be converted from the camera's RGB space to the XYZ color space.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Messer in view of RVS discloses A system for correcting nonuniformity of a near-eye display (NED), comprising: a light measuring device (LMD) configured to: (See Messer [0003], “As such, new systems, methods, and other techniques are needed to improve the color uniformity across such displays.” Also see Fig. 1 showing the AR display, which can be considered as a “near-eye display”.
Further see Messer [0061], “While each of displays 112 is displaying each image, the corresponding camera may capture the displayed image.” See Messer [0075], “The plurality of images may be captured in a particular color space. For example, each pixel of each image may include values for the particular color space. . . The values may be captured across the FoV by a colorimeter, a spectrophotometer, or a calibrated RGB camera, among other possibilities.” In this case, colorimeter, spectrophotometer, and calibrated RGB camera can be considered as a light measuring device.)
obtain, in response to a first plurality of test patterns being displayed by a display of the NED, a first plurality of images at an end of an optical path coupled to the display; and (See Messer [0061], “For example, a first image may be captured of a display while displaying a red image using a red illumination source, a second image may be captured of the same display while displaying a green image using a green illumination source, and a third image may be captured of the same display while displaying a blue image using a blue illumination source.”)
a processor configured to: (See Messer [0012], “Example 7 is a system comprising: one or more processors . . .”)
fit a mapping relationship for each of display pixels of the display according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of images, the mapping relationship of a display pixel mapping the display pixel and a corresponding image pixel in each image of the first plurality of images; and determine a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and are therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 16, Messer in view of RVS discloses The system according to claim 15, wherein the processor is further configured to generate the first plurality of test patterns for the display. (See Messer [0061], “For example, a first image may be captured of a display while displaying a red image using a red illumination source, a second image may be captured of the same display while displaying a green image using a green illumination source, and a third image may be captured of the same display while displaying a blue image using a blue illumination source.”)
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 contains similar limitations as to Claim 2 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 25, Messer in view of RVS discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that are executable by one or more processors of a device to cause the device to perform operations for correcting nonuniformity of a near-eye display (NED), the operations comprising: (See Messer [0009], “Example 4 is a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising: . . .” Also see Fig. 1 showing the AR display, which can be considered as a “near-eye display”.)
generating and displaying a first plurality of test patterns for a display of the NED; obtaining, in response to the first plurality of test patterns, a first plurality of images at an end of an optical path coupled to the display; fitting a mapping relationship for each of display pixels of the display according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of images, the mapping relationship of a display pixel mapping the display pixel and a corresponding image pixel in each image of the first plurality of images; and determining a correction scheme for correcting nonuniformity of the NED based on the mapping relationship of each of the display pixels. (The above limitations are similar to those of Claim 1 and is therefore rejected under a similar rationale as that of Claim 1.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-13 and 18-24 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 3, the cited prior art does not disclose or render obvious the combination of elements cited in the claims as a whole. Specifically, the cited prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the limitations: downsampling the first plurality of images to obtain a first plurality of intermediate images having a target resolution, respectively; and fitting the mapping relationship of the display pixel according to the first plurality of test patterns and the first plurality of intermediate images. Thus, Claim 3 contains allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claims 4-13, Claims 4-13 are dependent upon the base Claim of 3 and therefore also contains allowable subject.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 recites similar limitations as to Claim 3 and therefore also contains allowable subject.
Regarding Claims 19-24, Claims 19-24 are dependent upon the base Claim of 3 and therefore also contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THANG G HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-5432. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 7:30am-4:30pm EST | Fri 7:30am-11:30am EST.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (571)272-7794. 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.
/T.G.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights