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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”), US Pub. No. 2013/0088503.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method comprising: shifting image data from a memory device integrated with a display device (fig. 4, receives image data from frame buffer 110, stores image data in memory 121, transfers image data among frame controllers), wherein the image data represents motion of the display device and corresponds with a time of capture of the image data ([0050], motion vector of the motion picture); analyzing the image data via a processor to determine a stabilization correction to apply to the image data ([0048, 0050], data request unit analyzes image data, motion compensator estimates motion), wherein analyzing the image data comprises: determining the stabilization correction to correct for a displacement of at least a portion of the image data ([0050], motion compensator estimates motion using motion vectors; motion compensation inherently determines displacement corrections); applying the determined stabilization correction to the image data stored in the memory device to achieve stabilized image data ([0050], frame rate converter calculates prediction image data after motion compensation; corrected prediction image data output to display); and outputting the stabilized image data from the display device (fig. 4, prediction image data transmitted to display unit 125).
Regarding claim 16, it is a display of claim 1 and is rejected on the same grounds presented above.
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 2, 5, 10, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (see above), in view of Carlsson et al. (hereinafter “Carlsson”), US Pub. No. 2013/0093906.
Regarding claim 2, Park fails to explicitly teach wherein shifting the image data comprises adjusting a pointer within the memory device to select an offset position corresponding to the displacement.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Carlsson teaches shifting image data, adjusting a pointer withing memory device, and selecting offset position corresponding to displacement ([0024, 0027, 0030-0031]; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Park to include the feature of Carlsson. As such, a person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the motivation for doing so would have been to reduce computational complexity and memory bandwidth requirements.
Regarding claim 5, Carlsson teaches wherein applying the stabilization correction comprises shifting pixel values in a direction corresponding to the motion detected by a motion sensor ([0024-0027]).
Regarding claim 10, Carlsson teaches wherein shifting the image data comprises incrementing a pointer address in memory to shift image content horizontally or vertically by a predefined number of pixels (fig. 3, [0030-0031]).
Regarding claim 17, Carlsson teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the stabilization correction based on data from a motion sensor (fig. 1, motion sensor 104).
Regarding claim 18, Carlsson teaches wherein the processor is further configured to apply the stabilization correction by shifting an output pointer within the memory device to select pixel values from offset memory locations ([0024, 0027, 0030-0031]; fig. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 11, 19, and 20 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.
Claims 12-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art, either singularly or in combination, teaches or fairly suggests “storing image data in a memory device integrated with a display device, wherein the image data comprises pixel values corresponding to a captured frame of content; determining a stabilization correction based on motion of the display device; applying the stabilization correction by adjusting an output pointer within the memory device to shift the pixel values to a new display position corresponding to the stabilization correction; outputting the shifted pixel values in a first display field; and reusing the image data by further adjusting the output pointer to output the pixel values in a second display field at a different position, without modifying original pixel values stored in the memory device.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0045502) teaches peripheral color mapping for power saving.
Lee et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0064530) teaches calculating pixel displacement based on angle.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH B LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3147. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9am-5pm.
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, William Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
/KENNETH B LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights