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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-138534, filed on 08/31/2022.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (FP 7.30.03)
(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. (FP 7.30.05)
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. Such claim limitation(s) (Claims 1-6) is/are:
Processing unit in Claim 1, control unit in Claim 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Swinging unit, optical unit, driving unit in Claim 6
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. (FP 7.30.06)
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20100214328 A1), in view of Holmes et al. (US 20210056661 A1, hereinafter Holmes).
Regarding Claim 1, Hara teaches a display device (Hara, Paragraph [0019], "FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a liquid crystal display device"), comprising: a processing unit that controls a display element on the basis of image data (Hara, Paragraph [0042], "the SF development circuit 500 converts the video signal supplied from the intermediate frame generation circuit 200 to a digital code for the subfield driving so as to output the digital code to the display device 600"), and a control unit that controls the processing unit (Hara, Paragraph [0040], "The LUT selection circuit 400 selects any one of look-up tables from the LUT 300A to 300C based on a detection result from the motion detection circuit 100. The selected look-up table is output to the SF development circuit 500 as LUT information"), wherein the control unit [[obtains an amount of movement from the image data in a first frame and the image data in a second frame after the first frame]], sets the number of subframes for the second frame on the basis of the amount of movement (Hara, Paragraph [0008], "a sub-frame number adjuster that adjusts the number of sub-frames included in one frame based on the detection result"); further (Hara, Paragraph [0041], "when the detection result from the motion detection circuit 100 is "2× speed", the number of frames per second is set to 120. Therefore, the LUT selection circuit 400 selects the LUT 300B in which the number of sub-frames per frame is 24. When the detection result from the motion detection circuit 100 is "4× speed", the number of frames per second is set to 240. Therefore, the LUT selection circuit 400 selects the LUT 300C in which the number of sub-frames per frame is 12."), the subframes being for display of some of pixels included in the image data on the second frame (Hara, Paragraph [0039], "A digital code that specifies an ON state or an OFF state in each sub-frame is stored in each of these look-up tables for each gradation data"), and causes the processing unit to control the display element such that the subframes set for the second frame are displayed in a time period for display of the second frame (Hara, Paragraph [0045], "the display device 600 sets a frame frequency to 60 Hz and equally divides one frame into 48 sub-frames in performing the subfield driving").
But Hara does not explicitly disclose obtains an amount of movement from the image data in a first frame and the image data in a second frame after the first frame.
However, Holmes teaches obtains an amount of movement from the image data in a first frame and the image data in a second frame after the first frame (Holmes, Paragraph [0047], "Motion estimation is the process of analyzing multiple two dimensional (2D) images and producing motion vectors which describe the movement of regions from one image to the other"; [0049], "frame extrapolation can estimate the motion between two previously rendered frames and extrapolate a new frame based on the detected motion.").
Holmes and Hara are analogous since both of them are dealing with detecting/estimating motion between consecutive image frames in a display / image-processing context and using that motion information to derive additional frame content. Hara provided a way of adaptively adjusting the number of sub-frames per frame based on a detected inter-frame motion magnitude, so as to smoothly display moving images while preserving high-definition gradation for still images. Holmes provided a way of quantifying inter-frame motion between two consecutive frames as motion vectors produced by analyzing the two frames' 2D image data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the motion-vector-based inter-frame motion estimation taught by Holmes into the modified invention of Hara such that Hara's motion detection circuit 100 obtains the amount of movement between the Nth frame and the (N+1)th frame as a motion vector generated from the two frames' image data, which is then used by Hara's LUT selection circuit 400 to select the number of sub-frames per frame. The motivation is to quantify the inter-frame motion in a more precise, region-wise manner discussed by Holmes in Paragraph [0047].
Regarding Claim 7, it recites limitations similar in scope to the limitations of Claim 1 but as a method and the combination of Hara and Holmes teaches all the limitations as of Claim 1. Therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20100214328 A1), in view of Holmes et al. (US 20210056661 A1, hereinafter Holmes) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Kawai (US 20100259675 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Hara and Holmes teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination further teaches the control unit adjusts the number of sub-frames based on the detected motion (Hara, Paragraph [0008], "a sub-frame number adjuster that adjusts the number of sub-frames included in one frame based on the detection result”).
But the combination does not explicitly disclose the control unit sets the number of subframes larger in a case where the amount of movement is larger than a predetermined threshold, than the number of subframes set in a case where the amount of movement is equal to or less than the threshold.
However, Kawai teaches the amount of movement is larger than a predetermined threshold (Kawai, Paragraph [0056], "if the interframe difference value is not lower than the threshold value d1, the degree of motion m2 is output…assume that the degree of motion m2 is higher than the degree of motion m1"), and the amount of movement is equal to or less than the threshold (Kawai, Paragraph [0056], "if the interframe difference value is lower than a (predetermined) threshold value d1, the degree of motion m1 is output"); and Kawai further teaches driving per-sub-frame processing on the basis of this threshold classification (Kawai, Paragraph [0045], "The input frame is divided by detecting motion of each region in the input frame from an interframe difference and then reflecting the detected result on spatial frequency components for each region in a subframe").
Kawai and Hara are analogous since both are dealing with dividing an input frame into multiple sub-frames and controlling sub-frame processing on the basis of inter-frame motion detection. Hara provided a way of setting the number of sub-frames included in one frame according to the detected magnitude of motion. Kawai provided a way of using a predetermined threshold to classify the inter-frame motion into two categories (motion vs still region) and to drive sub-frame processing accordingly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the threshold-based motion classification of Kawai into the modified invention of Hara such that Hara's LUT selection circuit 400 compares the amount of movement against a predetermined threshold and selects the LUT (i.e., the number of sub-frames per frame) accordingly; and because setting more sub-frames when motion is above the threshold merely selects one of the two well-known design directions in this well-charted trade-off between temporal-frame rate and per-frame sub-frame count, that specific direction is an obvious design choice within the reach of the ordinary artisan. The motivation is to provide a clean, low-processing-load threshold decision — discussed by Kawai, [0056].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Hara, Holmes and Kawai teaches the invention in Claim 2.
The combination further teaches identifying a moving area that is an area where the amount of movement has been generated (Kawai, Paragraph [0058], "the degree of motion m1 is given to a region that is determined as a still region (a region that has a degree of motion M lower than d1). And, the degree of motion m2 is given to a region that is determined as a motion region (a region that has a degree of motion M higher than d1)"), the smaller the threshold set by the control unit (Kawai, Paragraph [0059], "the value for the degree of motion M for a region of interest is compared with the value for the degree of motion M for a surrounding region (a predetermined range of regions) so as to increase the value of the degree of motion M for the region of interest. This is, for example, a process of replacing a certain value with a maximum value in the range of filtering. As a result, some values for the degrees of motion M on the motion degree map Mmap are increased"; it is noted by expanding/increasing the moving-area classification through a comparison-increase filtering step in which surrounding regions influence the classification of a region of interest which read on the smaller the threshold set by the control unit ).
Kawai and Hara are analogous since both control per-frame sub-frame processing based on inter-frame motion characterization of areas within the frame. Hara provided a way of adaptively driving the sub-frame number based on the detected motion. Kawai provided a way of expanding, by comparison-increase filtering over a surrounding range of regions, the classification of surrounding regions into the motion-region class which effectively lowering the effective threshold at which those surrounding regions are treated as a moving area as the moving area grows. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the surrounding-region comparison-increase filtering taught by Kawai into the modified invention of Hara such that as the moving area grows, the effective threshold set for classifying regions as belonging to the moving area is lowered. The motivation is to spatially smoothly change the motion-based classification and thereby avoid discontinuous artefacts at boundaries between still and motion regions which is discussed by Kawai in Paragraph [0062], [0063].
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20100214328 A1), in view of Holmes et al. (US 20210056661 A1, hereinafter Holmes) and further in view of Kawai (US 20100259675 A1) as applied to Claim 2 above and further in view of Collins et al. (US 20080024467 A1, hereinafter Collins).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Hara, Holmes and Kawai teaches the invention in Claim 2.
The combination further teaches [[ wherein the control unit sets the subframes so that all of the pixels included in the second frame are each included in one of the subframes ]] in a case where the control unit has determined that the amount of movement is larger than the threshold (Kawai, Paragraph [0056], "if the interframe difference value is not lower than the threshold value d1, the degree of motion m2 is output…the degree of motion m2 is higher than the degree of motion m1"), [[ and sets the subframes so that only some of the pixels included in the second frame are each included in one of the subframes ]] in a case where the control unit has determined that the amount of movement is equal to less than the threshold (Kawai, Paragraph [0056], "if the interframe difference value is lower than a (predetermined) threshold value d1, the degree of motion m1 is output").
Kawai and Hara are analogous since both are dealing with dividing an input frame into multiple sub-frames and controlling sub-frame processing on the basis of inter-frame motion detected against a threshold. Kawai and Hara are analogous since both are dealing with dividing an input frame into multiple sub-frames and controlling sub-frame processing on the basis of inter-frame motion detected against a threshold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine Kawai's threshold classification of the amount of movement into the modified invention of Hara such that system will be able to dynamically adjust the sub-frame data based on the threshold of the movement. The motivation is to display each moving frame with the full spatial pixel complement to avoid missing pixels in fast-moving content while preserving display resources for still content by using only a subset of sub-frames which is discussed by Kawai in Paragraph [0056].
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Collins teaches wherein the control unit sets the subframes so that all of the pixels included in the second frame are each included in one of the subframes (Collins, Paragraph [0014], "The frame 200 is divided into a first sub-frame 202A, a second sub-frame 202B, and a third sub-frame 202C…Each of the sub-frames 202 may in one embodiment contain one-third of the pixels of the image data") … and sets the subframes so that only some of the pixels included in the second frame are each included in one of the subframes (Collins, Paragraph [0021], "The display device may further be able to display any number of sub-frames at different positions in succession greater than one”).
Collins and Hara are analogous since both are dealing with dividing a frame of image data into a plurality of sub-frames for driving a display device. Hara provided a way of setting the number of sub-frames per frame according to inter-frame motion. Collins provided a way of populating each sub-frame with a distinct subset of the pixels of a frame such that displaying all the sub-frames covers all pixels of the frame while displaying only some sub-frames covers only some pixels. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Collins's pixel-subset sub-frame partitioning into the modified invention of Hara such that when the Hara-selected number of sub-frames equals the full complement that covers all pixels of the second frame, and when the amount of movement is equal to or less than the threshold, the Hara-selected number of sub-frames is fewer than the full complement and therefore covers only some of the pixels of the second frame. The motivation is to display each moving frame with the full spatial pixel complement so as to avoid missing pixels in fast-moving content while preserving display resources for still content by using only a subset of sub-frames which is discussed by Collins in Paragraph [0012].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Hara, Holmes, Kawai and Collins teaches the invention in Claim 4.
The combination further teaches in the case where the control unit has determined that the amount of movement is equal to or less than the threshold (Kawai, Paragraph [0056], "if the interframe difference value is lower than a (predetermined) threshold value d1, the degree of motion m1 is output")
As explained in rejection of claim 4, the obviousness for combining of Kawai into Hara is provided above.
the control unit sets the subframes so that pixels of a third frame succeeding the second frame are each included in one of subframes of the third frame, the pixels being different from pixels not included in the second frame (Collins, Paragraph [0017], "the sub-frame of the image data, or source video, that is displayed at one of the positions 118 does not have to correspond to the same frame of the image data, or source video, that is displayed at the other of the positions 118. For instance, each of a first frame and a second frame may be divided into three sub-frames…The first sub-frame of the first frame may be displayed at the position 118A, the second sub-frame of the first frame may be displayed at the position 118B, and the third sub-frame of the first frame may be displayed at the position 118C. Thereafter, the first sub-frame of the first frame may again be displayed at the position 118A. Next, however, the second sub-frame of the second frame may be displayed at the position 118B, and then the third sub-frame of the second frame may be displayed at the position 118C") — pixel-position slots not covered by one frame's sub-frames (e.g., positions 118B, 118C after the first-frame partial display) are then covered by the succeeding frame's sub-frames using pixels of that succeeding frame).
As explained in rejection of claim 4, the obviousness for combining of Collins into Hara is provided above.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hara (US 20100214328 A1), in view of Holmes et al. (US 20210056661 A1, hereinafter Holmes) as applied to Claim 1 above and further in view of Collins et al. (US 20080024467 A1, hereinafter Collins).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Hara and Holmes teaches the invention in Claim 1.
The combination does not explicitly disclose but Collins teaches a swinging unit having an optical unit where light is incident on (Collins, Paragraph [0010], "The light as modulated by the pixel area 106 is directed towards an aiming mechanism 110, as indicated by the arrow 108. The aiming mechanism 110 may be or include a mirror, a lens, a refractive plate of refractory glass, or another type of aiming mechanism") — the aiming mechanism 110 (mirror/lens/refractive plate) <reads on swinging unit having an optical unit>, and light is incident on it as indicated by arrow 108); an actuator capable of swinging the swinging unit (Collins, Paragraph [0010], "The aiming mechanism 110 is able to move back and forth, as indicated by the arrows 112. That is, the aiming mechanism 110 is able to be physically adjusted"; it is noted that the physical-adjustment mechanism that moves the aiming mechanism back and forth <reads on actuator capable of swinging the swinging unit>); and a driving unit that drives the actuator in synchronization with processing by the processing unit (Collins, Paragraph [0012], "Physically adjusting the aiming mechanism 110 depending on the pixel of the image data in accordance with which the pixel area 106 of the modulator 104 is currently modulating the light allows the pixel area 106 to be used for more. than one pixel of the image data") — the mechanism that physically adjusts the aiming mechanism in step with which pixel the modulator is currently modulating <reads on driving unit that drives the actuator in synchronization with processing by the processing unit>).
Collins and Hara are analogous since both are dealing with dividing a frame of image data into a plurality of sub-frames and driving a display device on a per-sub-frame basis. Hara provided a way of driving a display element on a per-sub-frame basis with a video signal processing circuit as the processing unit. Collins provided a way of, per sub-frame, physically adjusting a light-shifting aiming mechanism in synchronism with the light modulator so as to project each sub-frame at a different position. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate Collins's aiming-mechanism / physical-adjustment / synchronous-driving trio into the modified invention of Hara such that a swinging aiming mechanism receives the light for each sub-frame, an actuator swings that aiming mechanism, and a driving unit drives the actuator in synchronization with Hara's processing (SF development circuit 500) of the sub-frames. The motivation is to achieve the display of image data with greater resolution than the number of pixel areas of the modulator itself which is discussed by Collins in Paragraph [0012];
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20220254290 A1 Image Processing Device And Image Processing Method
US 20180059528 A1 SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AN IMMERSION THEATER ENVIRONMENT WITH DYNAMIC SCREENS
US 20160034763 A1 IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, MOVING IMAGE PUBLISHING SYSTEM, MOVING IMAGE PUBLISHING METHOD, AND RECORDING MEDIUM
US 20150049122 A1 Display Apparatus Configured For Image Formation With Variable Subframes
US 20140218288 A1 DISPLAY DEVICE, DISPLAY CONTROL METHOD, AND PROGRAM
US 20090303391 A1 DISPLAY APPARATUS AND CONTROL METHOD OF THE SAME
US 20090268977 A1 METHOD FOR IMPROVING IMAGE QUALITY AND DISPLAY APPARATUS
US 20090086044 A1 MOVING-IMAGE REPRODUCING APPARATUS AND MOVING-IMAGE REPRODUCING METHOD
US 20040131331 A1 Apparatus for recording and/or reproducing digital data, such as audio/video (A/V) data, and control method thereof
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUJANG TSWEI whose telephone number is (571)272-6669. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-5:30pm 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, Kent Chang can be reached on (571) 272-7667. 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.
/YuJang Tswei/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights