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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I (claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 19 and 20) in the reply filed on 06/09/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “Applicant respectfully points out that all claims share the limitations of independent claims 1, 12, and 19. Moreover, all of Species I-IV includes the core features recited in claim 1: "identify a proportion of the display region occupied by a content region, and control a brightness of the display region based on the proportion." Each identified species provides specific implementation methods (e.g., thresholds, sensors, or inpainting) built upon this same technical foundation. The integrated nature of the present disclosure is further demonstrated by claim 20, which recites an electronic device that combines the features of identifying a proportion of the display region occupied by a content region (Species I), ambient light sensing (Species III), and person identification (Species II) into a single system. This is not found persuasive because: although independent claims are generic, dependent claims recites different details corresponding to different Species. For example, claim 2 (corresponding to Species I) recites “based on the proportion being equal to or greater than a threshold proportion, control the brightness of the display region to be equal to or greater than a reference brightness, and based on the proportion being less than the threshold proportion, control the brightness of the display region to be less than the reference brightness.” However, claims 3-4 recite (corresponding to Species II) “identify, based on the image, a person area of the mirror display corresponding to a reflection of a person, and set a brightness of an area of the mirror display other than the person area differently from a brightness of the person area.” See also claims 5-6 corresponding to Species III and claims 7-8 corresponding to Species IV. Thus, the prior art applicable to one invention would not likely be applicable to another invention. In addition, different search queries would be required for the different instructions or different brightness control conditions.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 12, 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eirinberg et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0300731 (hereinafter Eirinberg) in view of Kim et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0230524 (hereinafter Kim).
Consider claim 1, Eirinberg teaches an electronic device comprising: a mirror display comprising a display region (Figure 6b, menu options 680 and mirroring device 130; [0019], mirroring device 130); memory storing at least one instruction; and at least one processor including processing circuitry (Figure 10, processors 1002 and memory 1004), wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify the display region occupied by a content region ([0024], menu options), and control a brightness of the display region based on the content ([0024], increase brightness).
Eirignberg does not appear to specifically disclose identify a proportion of the display region occupied by a content region, and control a brightness of the display region based on the proportion.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kim teaches set a brightness range of the display module (abstract) and further teaches identify a proportion of the display region occupied by a content region, and control a brightness of the display region based on the proportion (Figure 7 and [0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control brightness based on the proportion as taught by Kim in order to reduce degradation of quality of the HDR image and/or preventing the non-HDR image from being displayed excessively bright as suggested in [0014].
Consider claim 2, Eirinberg and Kim teach all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Kim teaches wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further causes the electronic device to: based on the proportion being equal to or greater than a threshold proportion, control the brightness of the display region to be equal to or greater than a reference brightness (Figure 7 and [0128], reference number 703), and based on the proportion being less than the threshold proportion, control the brightness of the display region to be less than the reference brightness (Figure 7 and [0128], reference number 701), see motivation to combine in claim 1.
Consider claim 12, it includes the limitations of claim 1 and thus it is rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 13, it includes the limitations of claim 2 and thus it is rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 19, it includes the limitations of claim 1 and thus it is rejected by the same reasoning. In addition, Eirinberg teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium (Figure 10, 1016).
Consider claim 20, Eirinberg teaches an electronic device comprising: a mirror display comprising a display region (Figure 6b, 130 and 680); an ambient light sensor [0137]; a camera [0137]; memory storing at least one instruction; and at least one processor including processing circuitry, wherein the at least one processor is configured to individually or collectively execute the at least one instruction (Figure 10, 1000), and wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to: identify the display region occupied by a content region ([0024], menu options), and control a brightness of the display region based on the content region ([0024], menu options and brightness) and at least one of a sensor value obtained through the ambient light sensor, a user input selecting a screen mode of the mirror display, or a determination that a person is identified in an image captured by the camera ([0024], performs a function associated with the option when the hand continues to overlap the display position of the given option. [0022], the receipt of input that selects an augmented reality experience).
Eirinberg does not appear to specifically disclose identify a proportion of the display region occupied by a content region, and control a brightness of the display region based on the proportion.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Kim teaches set a brightness range of the display module (abstract) and further teaches identify a proportion of the display region occupied by a content region, and control a brightness of the display region based on the proportion (Figure 7 and [0128]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to control brightness based on the proportion as taught by Kim in order to reduce degradation of quality of the HDR image and/or preventing the non-HDR image from being displayed excessively bright as suggested in [0014].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, 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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights