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 .
Status of the Claims / Acknowledgments
Applicant’s reply of 2/27/2026, the petition of 4/22/2026, and the supplemental reply and terminal disclaimer of 7/24/2026 are acknowledged.
The terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 was approved 7/24/2026; the reply to the Office action of 12/1/2025 is complete as of 7/24/2026.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 21-25, 27-32, 34-38, and 40 are examined herein; claims 26, 33, and 39 remain withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Upon reconsideration in view of the full examination record, the requirement for restriction among Inventions I-III set forth in the Office action of 9/11/2025 is withdrawn, and previously withdrawn claims 28-32, 34-38, and 40 are
PNG
media_image1.png
2
2
media_image1.png
Greyscale
rejoined and examined on the merits herein.
The requirement is withdrawn in the interest of compact prosecution in view of the scope of the present action, and as a courtesy to Applicant; the withdrawal is not a concession that the requirement was improper.
This withdrawal renders moot the portion of Applicant’s 4/22/2026 petition directed to the restriction among Inventions I-III.
The election of species requirement (Species 1-3) is maintained for the reasons of record.
The species are mutually exclusive as claimed: a mapping function that is “linear with soft clipping” (claims 26, 33, 39; Fig. 4) is not “non-linear” (claims 27, 32, 40; Fig. 5).
Applicant’s identification of claims 21, 28, and 34 as generic (petition at 4-5) does not alter the propriety of the species requirement; should a generic claim be found allowable, withdrawn species claims will be considered for rejoinder consistent with MPEP 821.04.
Claims 26, 33, and 39 (nonelected Species 2) remain withdrawn from consideration.
Withdrawal of Double Patenting Rejection
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 21-25 and 27 over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,307,961 is withdrawn in view of the terminal disclaimer filed and approved 7/24/2026.
It is noted for the record that Applicant’s 2/27/2026 request to hold this rejection “in abeyance” was not a proper response to a rejection over an issued patent (the remarks’ characterization of the ‘961 patent as a “co-pending application” notwithstanding), which occasioned the 5/29/2026 notice; the 7/24/2026 filing cured the deficiency.
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statements filed 4/2/2025, 8/14/2025, and 6/25/2026 have been considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of the 6/25/2026 PTO/SB/08 listings accompany this action.
Interview Summary — 37 CFR 1.133(b)
An interview was held on 2/26/2026; the examiner’s Interview Summary (PTOL-413) was mailed 3/10/2026.
Applicant’s subsequent filings, including the 7/24/2026 supplemental reply requesting reconsideration, do not include a complete written statement of the substance of the interview.
Applicant is reminded that “[i]n every instance where reconsideration is requested in view of an interview with an examiner, a complete written statement of the reasons presented at the interview as warranting favorable action must be filed by the applicant.” 37 CFR 1.133(b); see MPEP 713.04.
Such a statement is required with Applicant’s next reply.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments of 2/27/2026, incorporated by the 7/24/2026 supplemental reply, have been fully considered.
Because the rejections below rest on restructured grounds, several arguments are moot; the following are addressed on their substance because Jeong remains applied.
First, Applicant argues (Remarks at 7-9) that Jeong applies “the same saturation gain” to the red, green, and blue sub-pixel data and therefore does not disclose modifying saturation “based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function.”
This argument conflates the application of a computed gain within a pixel which necessarily applies uniformly to that pixel’s sub-pixel data to effect a change of saturation [Jeong Paragraph 231: the gain is applied to the red, green, and blue sub-pixel data of the tone-mapped first image frame data] — with the computation of the gain across pixels, which Jeong expressly makes a function of hue: [Paragraph 227: “a relation representing a relationship between saturation, hue, and luminance of a pixel and a saturation gain”; Paragraphs 229-230: Equation 6, Gainsaturation = LUT(SaturationLevel, HueAngle)], and, in the multiscreen power-reduction flow, [Paragraph 279: “To increase cognitive luminance, the image processing controller 110 may generate a saturation gain for increasing saturation according to saturation, hue, and/or luminance of each of pixels configuring the image frame”].
A gain indexed by hue angle is hue-adaptive whether or not its per-pixel application is uniform across that pixel’s sub-pixels.
Second, Applicant’s arguments concerning the prior articulation of the claim 25 rejection (Remarks at 10-12) are persuasive as to that articulation: the formula presented in the 12/1/2025 action does not appear in Paragraph 31 of the specification as presented, and Paragraph 31’s admitted-conventional mapping is expressly “independent of the hue component.”
The claim 25 rejection as previously articulated is withdrawn and is replaced below on a documentary basis that does not rely on Paragraph 31 for any hue-dependent teaching.
Third, no separate arguments were presented for claims 22, 24, and 27 beyond dependency; those claims are addressed on the restructured grounds below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
The following limitations of claim 34, from which claims 35-38 and 40 depend, are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): “one or more processors to: decrease a value component …; modify a saturation component … based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function ...; generate modified HSV components …; and provide an output…”
Although claim 34 does not use the word “means,” the limitation meets the three-prong analysis of MPEP 2181(I).
The claim recites “one or more processors” coupled by the transition “to” solely to functional language, without recitation of structure, material, or acts for performing the specialized functions claimed.
A processor or general-purpose computer connotes sufficient structure only for functions coextensive with a processor itself— receiving, storing, and processing data; “[a] microprocessor or general purpose computer lends sufficient structure only to basic functions of a microprocessor. All other computer-implemented functions require disclosure of an algorithm.” EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d 616, 621-23 (Fed. Cir. 2015), citing In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
PNG
media_image2.png
3
1
media_image2.png
Greyscale
MPEP 2181 (II)(B).
The claimed functions — including modifying a saturation component based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to offset a decrease in the value component — are not coextensive with the basic functions of a processor.
Accordingly, for these specialized functions the recited “one or more processors” does not connote sufficiently definite structure and is treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The corresponding structure for a computer-implemented § 112(f) limitation performing a specialized function is not a general-purpose computer, but the computer programmed with the algorithm that performs the claimed specialized function; the specification’s disclosure was reviewed at [Paragraphs 23-28; Equations (9)-(14); Figs. 4-6] and is addressed below.
The dependent device claims couple additional functions to the same § 112(f) interpreted “one or more processors”:
converting between the first color space and HSV components (claim 35);
selecting the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function from a plurality of saturation mapping functions based on a hue component (claim 36); and
interpolating points of a three-dimensional look up table (claim 37).
The specification discloses corresponding algorithms for the converting functions [Paragraphs 15-22; Equations (1)-(8)] and for the interpolating function [Paragraph 16: anchor points calculated off-line, modified values generated “using tri-linear or tetrahedral interpolation”; Paragraphs 37-39; Fig. 7: cube 705, vertices 710], and hue-indexed access is disclosed for the act of selection [Paragraphs 23-28; Equation (9)]. These functions are therefore supported by adequate corresponding structure.
The functions found lacking corresponding algorithmic structure are those addressed in the rejections below: modification based on the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function, and the constituent per-hue functions and slope functions recited in claims 36 and 38.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 34-38 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 34 recites “one or more processors to . . . modify a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the value component.”
A computer-implemented § 112(f) claim limitation is indefinite when the specification fails to disclose any algorithm to perform the claimed function, or discloses an algorithm that is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function; the requirement for disclosure of an algorithm cannot be avoided by arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of writing software to perform the claimed function. MPEP 2181(II)(A), (IV).
The specification represents the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function in three ways, and each terminates in undisclosed content.
The analytic composition of [Paragraph 24; Equation (10): ƒsm(H, S, V) = ƒm(H, S, ƒs(H, V))] resolves through the power function of S [Paragraph 25; Equation (11)] to ƒs of [Paragraph 27; Equation (12)], whose “pre-defined maximum slope Smaxh and exponent eh for any hue value h” are given no values, no table, and no rule of assignment.
The multiplicative form [Paragraph 28; Equations (13)-(14): Sout = MIN(Sinp × k(H, V), 1.0); k(H, V)=kmax(H) × kshape(H,V)] resolves to kmax as “a function of hue H” and kshape as “a function of hue H and value V,” neither of which is defined by formula, values, or rule.
The three-dimensional lattice [Paragraph 23; Equation (9)] is a storage format whose entries are not disclosed. [Figs. 4-6] provide example curves for three hues only and no rule for any other hue value.
The specification therefore does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure — the algorithm — corresponding to the claimed specialized functions.
“Claiming a processor to perform a specialized function without disclosing the internal structure of the processor in the form of an algorithm, results in claims that exhibit the 'overbreadth inherent in open-ended functional claims.”
Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1256 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Int'l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ex parte Catlin (BPAI Feb. 3, 2009) (precedential); Finisar corp. v. DirecTV Grp., Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340-41 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Claim 38 separately recites that “the hue-adaptive slope increase function is a product of a maximum slope as a function of the hue component and a saturation increase slope shape as a function of the hue component and the value component.”
The specification discloses this limitation only at the claim's own level of abstraction: kmax as “a function of hue H” and kshape as “a function of hue H and value V” [Paragraph 28; Equations (13)-(14)], with three example curves [Fig. 6] and no formula, values, or rule of assignment for either factor.
The specification therefore does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure — the algorithm — corresponding to the claimed specialized functions.
Claim 36 likewise recites selection from “a plurality of saturation mapping functions” comprising functions corresponding to green, blue, and red hues, the members of which are disclosed only as the three example curves [Figs. 4-6; Paragraphs 25-28].
No algorithm for performing these separately recited functions is disclosed, for the reasons set forth above.
The specification therefore does not contain an adequate disclosure of the structure — the algorithm — corresponding to the claimed specialized functions.
Claims 35 and 37 are not separately rejected beyond their dependency: the converting and interpolating functions they recite are supported by disclosed algorithms [Equations (1)-(8); Paragraph 16; Paragraphs 37-39; Fig. 7].
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. 112(a) — Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-25, 27-32, 34-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Each of claims 21, 28 and 34 requires modifying the saturation component “based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function . . . to offset the decrease in the value component” — a computer-implemented function claimed by the result it achieves.
However, the Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) for deriving the above computer implemented function(s).
The written description requirement demands “a sufficient description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve” (MPEP 2163(I)(A), (II)(A)); for computer-implemented functional claim limitations, the specification must disclose how the claimed function is performed, and it is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function (MPEP 2161.01 (I)).
The specification does not describe how the hue-adaptation — the asserted point of departure from the admittedly hue-independent conventional mapping [Paragraph 31; Equations (15)-(16): “the saturation mapping function is independent of the hue component”] — is performed.
As detailed in the § 112(b) rejection above and incorporated here, every disclosed representation of the mapping function [Equations (9)-(14)] terminates in “pre-defined” per-hue quantities — Smaxh , eh, kmax(H), kshape(H,V) and the lattice entries — whose assignment across hue is never taught, and [Figs. 4-6] supply example curves for three hues without any rule extending them to “any hue value h” [Paragraph 27].
Each of claims 23, 29, and 36 recites the subject matter: “a plurality of saturation mapping functions.”
However, the Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) for deriving the above computer implemented function(s).
Each of claims 25, 31, 38 recites the subject matter: “a hue-adaptive slope increase function.”
However, the Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) for deriving the above computer implemented function(s).
The same absence of description extends to each separately recited function:
The “plurality of saturation mapping functions” comprising a first, second, and third function corresponding to green, blue, and red hues (claims 23, 29, 36), whose only disclosed members are the three example curves with no rule defining them or any other member [Figs. 4-6; Paragraphs 25-28]; and
The “hue-adaptive slope increase function,” including the recited “maximum slope as a function of the hue component” and “saturation increase slope shape as a function of the hue component and the value component” (claims 25, 31, 38), disclosed only as the undefined kmax(H) and kshape(H,V) [Paragraph 28; Equations (13)-(14)] and the “pre-defined” Smaxh and eh [Paragraph 27; Equation (12)].
The Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) by which any of the above claimed function(s) is/are performed. Accordingly, the Specification lacks a sufficient written description of the above function(s), as instantly claimed. As such, the Specification does not contain an adequate disclosure of structure, material, or acts corresponding to the above function(s), as instantly claimed.
Separately and additionally, comparing the scope of the claims with the scope of the description: the claims encompass every hue-adaptive saturation mapping function achieving the recited offset, while the disclosure conveys possession of, at most, a parameterized family of unspecified members.
Disclosure of species must be sufficient to convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor possessed the subject matter of the genus, and it does not do so here.
MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3); Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
Any remaining claim(s) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as being dependent upon one or more rejected base claims.
Claim Rejections — 35 U.S.C. 112(a) — Enablement
Claims 21-25, 27-32, 34-38, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.
The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
The specification must teach one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988); MPEP 2164.
Each of claims 21, 28 and 34 requires modifying the saturation component “based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function . . . to offset the decrease in the value component” — a computer-implemented function claimed by the result it achieves.
However, the Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) for deriving the above computer implemented function(s).
Each of claims 23, 29, and 36 recites the subject matter: “a plurality of saturation mapping functions.”
However, the Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) for deriving the above computer implemented function(s).
Each of claims 25, 31, 38 recites the subject matter: “a hue-adaptive slope increase function.”
However, the Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) for deriving the above computer implemented function(s).
The Specification does not provide any algorithm(s) by which any of the above claimed function(s) is/are performed. As such, the Specification does not contain an enabling disclosure of structure, material, or acts corresponding to the above function(s), as instantly claimed.
Considering the Wands factors:
the claims are broad, encompassing any hue-adaptive mapping achieving the recited offset of a decreased value component;
the nature of the invention places its asserted advance precisely in the hue-adaptation;
the specification's direction and working examples on that point consist of parameterized forms with undisclosed per-hue assignments [Equations (9)-(14)] and three example curves [Figs. 4-6], with no teaching of which hues receive which modification, or in what measure, to achieve the claimed offset; and,
while the art of display color processing is generally predictable in its arithmetic, the disclosure provides no starting point or criteria from which the full scope of offset-achieving hue-adaptive functions could be practiced short of independent development.
The same absence of direction applies to each separately recited function, including the members of the recited plurality of per-hue saturation mapping functions and the factors of the recited hue-adaptive slope increase function.
On balance, undue experimentation would be required to practice the full scope of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Ground A
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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 of this title, 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 following ground and Ground B below are presented as complementary grounds: each limitation reached by construction under one ground is met by express disclosure under the other.
Claims 21-23, 28, 29, 31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Lee (US 2005/0047657 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Jeong discloses a computer-implemented method [Fig. 2: 110, 111; Fig. 3: 210, 211 image processing controller/processor], comprising:
decreasing, by one or more processors, a [luminance of the pixels of an image frame] to generate a decreased [luminance] [Paragraph 272: “The tone mapping curve means a curve for changing luminance of a plurality of pixels configuring an image frame . . . an increase or decrease in brightness of an image frame”; Fig. 14: 1040, 1050 — tone mapping applied to reduce power consumption];
modifying, by the one or more processors, a saturation component of the pixel input based on a hue-adaptive saturation mapping function [Paragraph 227: “a relation representing a relationship between saturation, hue, and luminance of a pixel and a saturation gain”; Paragraphs 229-230: Equation 6, Gainsaturation — LUT(SaturationLevel, HueAngle)] to generate a modified saturation component to offset the decrease in the [luminance] [Paragraph 279: “To increase cognitive luminance, the image processing controller 110 may generate a saturation gain for increasing saturation according to saturation, hue, and/or luminance of each of pixels configuring the image frame”; Paragraph 231: the gain is applied to the red, green, and blue sub-pixel data of the tone-mapped first image frame data];
generating, by the one or more processors, modified [second image frame data] of the pixel input comprising the decreased and modified saturation components [Paragraphs 231-233: Equation 7]; and
providing, by the one or more processors, an output to be received by an organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display panel [Paragraph 61: “an organic light-emitting diode”; display driver 241 outputs driving current corresponding to the image frame data to display panel 242],
the output configured to control a corresponding pixel of the OLED display panel [Paragraphs 60-61: individual pixels constructing the display panel 242 output light according to the received driving current] (see Paragraphs 224-233, 268-280).
Jeong does not expressly disclose performing the foregoing on components in an HSV color space decreasing the value component, or generating modified HSV components.
However, Lee discloses a saturation-adjusting architecture for a display system operating expressly in HSV color space: [Paragraph 9: “an RGB-HSV conversion unit receiving an input RGB image signal and converting RGB values of the input RGB image signal into corresponding HSV values; … a color saturation adjusting unit generating new HSV values in which color saturation values are varied …; and an HSV-RGB conversion unit converting the new HSV values … into corresponding RGB values”; Fig. 3], in which brightness/value is one of the three directly manipulable parameters of the representation [Paragraphs 4-5, 19-20; Figs. 1-2].
Jeong and Lee are analogous art to the claimed invention and to one another, because both are from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention — the processing of display image color components, including saturation, to control the output of an electronic display — and because each is reasonably pertinent to a problem confronting the inventor: Jeong to reducing display power consumption while preserving perceived image quality, and Lee to adjusting the saturation of selected hues in the HSV color space without disturbing the remaining color parameters.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Jeong’s luminance-decrease-with-hue-adaptive-saturation-compensation scheme within Lee’s HSV-domain architecture — performing the luminance decrease on the value component and the gain application on the saturation component of HSV-converted pixel data — because Lee teaches that the HSV representation permits “selectively and differently adjusting color saturation values of desired colors” without disturbing the remaining parameters [Paragraph 3; Paragraph 9], the very per-hue selectivity that Jeong’s hue-indexed gain requires, with predictable results. MPEP 2143 (rationales (A), (D)).
Regarding claim 22, Lee discloses converting, by the one or more processors, components of the pixel input from a first color space to HSV components, and converting the modified HSV components to modified components in the first color space for output [Paragraph 9: RGB-HSV conversion unit; HSVRGB conversion unit; Fig. 3], applied in the combination for the reasons stated for claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, Jeong discloses applying the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function from a plurality of saturation mapping functions based on a hue component:
the gain LUT indexed by HueAngle constitutes a plurality of saturation mappings selected according to the hue component [Paragraphs 229-230: Equation 6].
Lee further expressly discloses per-hue saturation adjusting values “for red, yellow, green, cyan, blue, and magenta colors … located in an equal interval on the HSV color [circle],” with values for “intermediate hues between the representative hues obtained by an interpolation method” [Paragraph 31; Fig. 4] — a plurality of saturation mapping functions including a first corresponding to a green hue, a second corresponding to a blue hue, and a third corresponding to a red hue.
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Jeong and Lee teaches the method of claim 21 as set forth above, and Lee further discloses converting the modified HSV color space pixel input to a first color space pixel input and providing the output based on the first color space pixel input [Paragraph 9: HSV-RGB conversion unit converting the new HSV values into corresponding RGB values and outputting the RGB values; Fig. 3],
with Jeong’s driver providing the drive output to the pixels of the OLED display panel [display driver 241; display panel 242; Paragraphs 60-61].
Regarding claim 29, see the citations for claim 23, which apply mutatis mutandis to the method of claim 28.
PNG
media_image3.png
1
1
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Jeong’s multiplicative hue-indexed gain [Paragraphs 229-230: Equation 6] constitutes a hue-adaptive slope of the saturation mapping — the factor by which saturation is increased as a function of hue — and therefore a hue-adaptive slope increase function under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claims 34-36, Jeong discloses a device comprising one or more processors [Fig. 2: 110, 111; Fig. 3: 210, 211].
The citations set forth above for claims 21-23 are incorporated for the corresponding functional limitations of claims 34-36, respectively: the decrease, modification, generation, and output functions of claim 34 per the claim 21 mapping; the bidirectional conversions of claim 35 per the claim 22 mapping [Lee Paragraph 9; Fig. 3]; and
the selection from a plurality of per-hue functions of claim 36 per the claim 23 mapping [Jeong Paragraphs 229-230; Lee Paragraph 31, Fig. 4].
Claims 24, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Lee (US 2005/0047657 A1) as applied to claims 23, 29, and 34 above, and further in view of Matsui et al (US 2016/0253981 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Jeong’s gain relation is a function of three variables — saturation, hue, and luminance [Paragraph 227] — disclosed in tabulated (LUT) form for the two-variable case [Paragraphs 229-230: Equation 6] .
Neither Jeong nor Lee expressly discloses interpolating points of a three-dimensional look up table to generate the modified saturation component.
However, Matsui discloses display color-correction conversion implemented on a three-dimensional lookup table circuit with per-hue (six-axis) organization [Paragraphs 8-9: “6-axis adjustment is performed by means of a generic 3D LUT (three-dimensional lookup table) circuit”] and
an interpolation unit that interpolates values “by means of same interpolation characteristic as that of the 3D LUT circuit” [Paragraph 10].
Matsui is analogous art to the claimed invention and to the Jeong-Lee combination, because it is from the same field of display color processing — the hardware implementation of color-conversion mappings for display panels — and is reasonably pertinent to the problem of implementing a multi-variable color mapping efficiently in display hardware, the same implementation problem addressed by the claimed tabulated mapping.
It would have been obvious to tabulate Jeong’s three-variable gain relation as a three-dimensional LUT with interpolation between lattice points, per Matsui, as the conventional hardware implementation of a multi-variable color mapping in display processing, with predictable results. MPEP 2143 (rationales (A), (D)).
Regarding claim 30, the same citations and rationale apply to the method of claim 29.
Regarding claim 37, a three-dimensional lookup table circuit as taught by Matsui [Paragraphs 8-10] necessarily comprises entries organized along three axes — a first number of entries along a first axis, a second along a second axis, and a third along a third axis — as the defining lattice structure of a 3D LUT.
Claims 27, 32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (US 2019/0206364 A1) in view of Lee (US 2005/0047657 A1) as applied to claims 21, 28, and 34 above, and further in view of Lucat (WO 2007/072321 A1) and Granger (US 2009/0040564 A1).
Regarding claim 27, neither Jeong nor Lee expressly characterizes the hue-adaptive saturation mapping function as non-linear (Lee’s mapping is linear to its clip [Paragraphs 39-40]).
Lucat discloses saturation modification for small displays that is expressly “non-uniform (in the sense that the amount of modification made, if any, is dependent on the saturation value and/or hue value) and non-linear (in the sense that whether or not any modification is made is determined by the saturation value and/or the hue value)” [p. 2, ll. 30-35], with the gain “dependent on the hue”: “it is desirable to amplify a saturation value in respect of a primarily blue or green hue by a greater extent than that of a primarily yellow or red hue” [p. 3, ll. 5-8].
Granger likewise discloses a per-hue saturation compander that is linear only until the vicinity of the chromaticity gain limit (approximately the 70-80% region) and nonlinear thereafter, wherein “this companding to a chromaticity gain limit applies to each hue” [Paragraph 116; Fig. 6].
Lucat and Granger are analogous art to the claimed invention and to the Jeong-Lee combination, because both are from the same field of display color enhancement by saturation modification, and each is reasonably pertinent to the problem of determining the degree and form of saturation modification to apply across hues and input saturation levels — Lucat through its non-uniform, non-linear, hue-dependent saturation boost for small displays, and Granger through its per-hue saturation companding toward a chromaticity gain limit.
It would have been obvious to employ a non-linear hue-adaptive saturation mapping in the Jeong-Lee combination, as taught by Lucat and Granger, to preserve perceptually accurate saturation rendering as input saturations approach the gain limit while retaining the per-hue differentiation of the combination, with predictable results.
Regarding claims 32 and 40, the same citations and rationale apply to the method of claim 28 and the device of claim 34, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Ground B
Claims 21-23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 34-36, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seong (KR 10-2021-0021852 A) in view of Shiga et al (“Power Reduction of OLED Displays by Tone Mapping Based on Helmholtz-Kohlrausch Effect”, IEICE Transactions on Electronics, Vol. E100-C, No. 11, pp. 1026-1030, November 2017).
Please note: an English language translation of the Seong (KR 10-2021-0021852 A) document is of record (IDS filed on 6/25/2026) and relied upon for citations in this Office action.
Regarding claim 21, Seong discloses an organic light-emitting display in which the image data is corrected [transl. p. 5: the compensation processing unit 400 corrects the image data RGB “so that the saturation characteristic is modulated by reflecting the luminance decrease characteristic according to the driving voltage decrease” deviation of the image display panel 100];
an HSV data conversion unit converting the RGB pixel data to hue, luminance (value), and saturation data [unit 410; Fig. 2];
a luminance correction unit modulating the luminance data by multiplication with a modulation parameter [unit 415; transl. pp. 7-8];
saturation correction gain values GS stored in memory per hue index — indices 1 through 12, including Blue (1), Red (5), and Green (9) -- at multiple display-luminance levels, the stored gains being largest at the lowest luminance level [memory 450; Fig. 4(a): per-hue gain values; Fig. 4(b):
PNG
media_image4.png
1
1
media_image4.png
Greyscale
LUTmin > LUTmid > LUTmax];
a first correction multiplying GS by a luminance-based correction gain VG that diminishes as the luminance value increases, and a second saturation-based correction [units 430, 440; transl. pp. 7-8]; and
reconversion of the modulated data to R’G’B’ provided to the drive circuit of the organic light-emitting display panel [unit 470; drive circuit 200; Figs. 1-2].
Seong does not employ the express step of “decreasing . . . a value component to generate a decreased value component” [its luminance decrease arises from the driving-voltage reduction that the data-path modulation reflects].
However, Shiga supplies the governing formalism on this side of the scheme:
for OLED power saving, the “pixel value is reduced by increasing the saturation while maintaining the hue and value of HSV color space, resulting in power saving of OLED displays since the power consumption of OLED displays directly depends on the pixel value,”
wherein “the value of HSV color space is used as an index of brightness” and
the saturation increase factor is bounded by a maximum kMAX and reduced as brightness increases [Shiga Sections 1-2, Fig. 3(a)(b)].
Seong and Shiga are analogous art to the claimed invention and to one another, because both are from the same field of endeavor— image data processing for organic light-emitting diode displays — and each addresses the very problem confronting the inventor: compensating a luminance decrease of an OLED panel by increasing saturation, Seong through per-hue saturation correction gains reflecting the panel's luminance decrease characteristic, and Shiga through saturation increase in the HSV color space bounded by a value-dependent slope.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform Seong’s luminance-decrease-and-per-hue-saturation-compensation in the HSV value/ saturation data domain that Seong’s own conversion unit establishes decreasing the value component in correspondence with the intended panel luminance decrease and applying the stored per-hue gains to offset it — because Shiga establishes the HSV value component as the operative brightness index for exactly this class of OLED power scheme, with predictable results. MPEP 2143 (rationales (A), (D)).
Regarding claims 22 and 35, Seong discloses the bidirectional conversions [HSV data conversion unit 410; image data conversion unit 470; Fig. 2].
Regarding claims 23, 29, and 36, Seong discloses a plurality of per-hue saturation gains selected according to the hue of the pixel data, including gains at hue indices corresponding to Blue, Red, and Green [memory 450; Fig. 4(a): tone indices 1:Blue, 5:Red, 9:Green with distinct gain values].
Regarding claims 25 and 38, Seong discloses that the applied saturation correction is a product:
the per-hue gain GS — stored per hue index and per display-luminance level, constituting a maximum available slope as a function of the hue component [Fig. 4(a)-(b)] -- multiplied by the luminance-based correction gain VG, a function of the value of the luminance data [transl. pp. 7-8: the saturation correction gain value GS is first corrected by multiplying the luminance-based correction gain value VG], and further corrected based on the saturation data [unit 440].
To the extent the claimed factor assignment -- “a maximum slope as a function of the hue component” and “a saturation increase slope shape as a function of the hue component and the value component” -- is construed to require the hue-and-value dependence within a single factor, Seong’s gain structure, in which the hue-indexed factor itself varies across luminance levels [Fig. 4(b)], renders the claimed factorization an obvious rearrangement of the same multiplicative hue-and-value-dependent slope, particularly in view of Shiga’s conventional value-dependent slope k(V) with maximum-slope parameter kMAX [Shiga Fig. 3(b)] — the structure the instant specification itself acknowledges as conventional [Paragraph 31] — made hue-dependent per Seong’s stored per-hue gains. MPEP 2143 (rationale (A); 2144.04 rearrangement).
Regarding claims 28 and 34, the citations above are incorporated; Seong’s compensation processing unit constitutes the recited one or more processors under the broadest reasonable interpretation [unit 400; Fig. 2], and
the reconverted first-color-space data drives the pixels of the organic light-emitting display panel [unit 470; drive circuit 200].
Regarding claim 31, the composite gain applied to the saturation data — the per-hue GS multiplied by the luminance-based VG — is a hue-adaptive slope increase function under the broadest reasonable interpretation [units 420-460; transl. pp. 7-8].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. The documents listed on the attached ‘Notice of References Cited’ are cited to further evidence the state of the art pertaining to displays.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure:
Zhao et al (US 2015/0138227 A1) [Paragraphs 35-41: adjusting the brightness value V of HSV-converted data by multiplication with a factor y(s) ≤ 1];
Segman (US 2003/0025835 A1);
Miller et al (US 9,343,042 B2; US 2010/0225673 A1);
Guerin et al (US 2020/0184690 A1);
Partin et al (US 2021/0287348 A1);
Park (US 2008/0204378 A1);
Chondro et al. "Advanced Multimedia Power-Saving Method Using a Dynamic Pixel Dimmer on AMOLED Displays," IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology, vol. 28, no. 9, Sept. 2018, pp 2200-2209; and
Choi et al. "Adaptive Color Saturation Control for Low Power RGBW OLED Displays" Journal of Display Technologies, vol. 12, no. 8, Aug. 2016, pp. 784-790.
Applicant is again reminded that a complete written statement as to the substance of the 2/26/2026 interview is required with the reply to this action. 37 CFR 1.133(b).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Piziali whose telephone number is (571)272-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (7:30AM - 4PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nitin (Kumar) Patel can be reached at 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 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.
/Jeff Piziali/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2628
3 August 2026
Prosecution Insights