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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/22/2025 and 12/05/2025 was filed on and after the mailing date of the claims on 7/22/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
1. Claim(s) 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent 11303859 Dutton et al. (hereinafter Dutton) in view of WO 2007/062154 A2 Wiklof.
2. Regarding Claim 1 Dutton discloses An image projection apparatus (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”) comprising:
at least one distance sensor (Col. 2 lines 56-57, “distance sensed by the TOF sensor”);
an image projector (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”);
at least one memory comprising a non-volatile storage medium storing instructions (Claim 20, “The image projection device of claim 1, wherein the control circuitry further comprises a look-up table including a plurality of focus values and imaging distance values, each focus value being associated a corresponding imaging distance value”); and
at least one processor operatively connected with the at least one distance sensor, the image projector, and the at least one memory (Claim 1, “An image projection device, comprising: image projection circuitry configured to generate a light beam having a power, and to project the light beam onto and focus the light beam on a projection surface located an imaging distance from the image projection circuitry; a time-of-flight sensor configured to sense the imaging distance between the image projection circuitry and the projection surface, and to generate an imaging distance signal based on the sensed imaging distance; and control circuitry coupled to the image projection circuitry and to the time-of-flight sensor.” Col. 4 lines, “The image projection device 100 further includes processing and control circuitry 108 that receives the imaging distance signal IDS and ambient light signal ALS from the TOF sensor 102 and controls the overall operation of the image projection device 100.”) and comprising a processing circuit, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Fig. 1A: 108; Col. 4 lines 19-20, “The image projection device 100 further includes processing and control circuitry 108”), cause the image projection apparatus (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”) to:
obtain a projection plane deviation correction coefficient reflecting a characteristic of a projection plane obtained from the at least one distance sensor(Claim 6, “wherein the time-of-flight sensor is further configured to project the light beam to generate a plurality of projection patterns, each projection pattern being projected onto a respective one of a plurality of spatial zones on the projection surface…the multi zone photon avalanche diode array includes a plurality of array zones…a corresponding zone sensed event signal…wherein the time-of-fight sensor is configured to generate a plurality of zone imaging distance signals, each of the plurality of zone imaging distance signals being based upon the zone sensed event signal of a corresponding one of the plurality of array zones and indicating an imaging distance between the time-of-flight sensor and the corresponding one of the plurality of spatial zones.” Col. 12 lines 8-16, “FIG. 9B illustrates a situation where the projection surface 104 is skewed relative to the position of the image projection device 100. The surface 104 may also be curved such that the distance from the image projection device to the actual surface is different depending on a location on the surface. As a result of this skew of the projection surface 104, the TOF sensor 102 senses different values for the detected imaging distances D.sub.TOF1-D.sub.TOF4 of the spatial zones SZ1-SZ4.” This per-zone imaging distance data -which characterizes skew/curvature of the projection plane.; and
generate an output image to be projected by the image projector onto a projection region of the projection plane by correcting a brightness of a pixel of an input image based on at least one of the brightness variation coefficient or the projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Claim 1, “the control circuitry configured to adjust the power based upon the imaging distance signal and configured to adjust the power of the light beam as a linear function of the imaging distance signal.” The specification ties this power adjustment specifically to brightness: Col. 5 lines 55-62, “the control circuitry 108 adjusts the laser drive signals LDS to increase the power of the light beams 106 generated by the laser diodes 114. Conversely, when ALS signal indicates a low level of ambient light in the environment, the control circuitry 108 adjusts the LDS signals to decrease the power of the light beams 106. In this way, the control circuitry 108 increases the brightness of the projected light beam 128.”)
However, Dutton does not explicitly disclose determine a brightness variation coefficient regarding an input pixel to a gradation conversion model and an output pixel corresponding to the input pixel;
Wiklof teaches determine a brightness variation coefficient regarding an input pixel to a gradation conversion model and an output pixel corresponding to the input pixel (The input-pixel-to-output pixel relationship directly, using figs. 1 and 2 description: Page 1 lines 21-22, “input video signal 102 is shown as consisting of interleaved pixels or lines that vary in brightness value” and Page 1 lines 27-30, “the input video image 102, when convolved with a uniform screen response 104, creates an output image 106 that is substantially identical with the input video image 102.” Where the screen is non-uniform, see page 2 lines 8-10, “the variation in pixel values present in the input video image 102 is superimposed over the screen response 202 to output the non-uniform output image 204.” Page 9 lines 21-22, “pixel brightness and pixel placement may be modified according to the nature of the measured image distortion.” And applied via Page 9 lines 13-14 “a fairly simple addition or multiplication of input video pixel values with the corresponding screen compensation pixel values.” Functions as a gradation conversion model: a stored, input-value-indexed table converting each input grayscale/brightness level to a corrected output level. Wiklof doesn’t use the term “gradation conversion model”, but the disclosed LUT/matrix structure (input pixel value-Looked-up or computed correction -> output pixel value) is functionally identical to what the term describes.
A POSTIA would have been motivated to incorporate Wiklof’s technique into Dutton’s apparatus as a combination of known elements, yielding the predictable result of a projected image corrected for both projector-to-surface distance and per-pixel screen non-uniformity.
3. Claim 11 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in apparatus claim 1.
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.
4. Claim(s) 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Wiklof as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 9747865 Sung et al. (hereinafter Sung).
5. Regarding Claim 2 Dutton in view of Wiklof discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 1,
However, Dutton in view of Wiklof does not explicitly disclose wherein the gradation conversion model is set during a manufacturing process.
Further, Sung teaches wherein the gradation conversion model is set during a manufacturing process (Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 32-33, “the second look-up table 142 is written into the second storage unit 140 at a production end.” Production end gamma table to the display’s own characteristics- which is the grayscale/gradation correction data plays: Col. 5 lines 29-31, “the second gamma look-up table 142 loaded at a production end is designed according to the display characteristics of the display panel 102.” Claim 1, “a second storage unit, configured to store a second gamma look-up table associated with said display characteristics of the display device… wherein the first gamma look-up table is stored to the first storage unit after the display device is powered on.” (first table set at power-on, second table set at production/manufacturing) makes the manufacturing-time storage step explicit and claimed.)).
A POSITA combining Lim’s grayscale correction coefficient scheme with Sung’s teaching would have been motivated to set the gradation/grayscale correction data during manufacturing because Sung expressly teaches this as a known, beneficial technique-tying the correction table to the display’s own characteristics, determined once at the production end, device-specific calibration step Sung explains reduces production burden while ensuring device-specific accuracy (Col. 1 lines 31-40, “the act of simultaneously storing multiple sets of gamma look-up tables to an EEPROM not only causes a production load… Therefore, there is a need for a solution for reducing the production load as well as the costs.”). Hence, yielding the predictable result of a factory-set gradation conversion model.
6. Claim 12 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in apparatus claim 2.
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.
7. Claim(s) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Wiklof as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 6115022 Mayer et al. (hereinafter Mayer) further in view of U.S. Patent 10917619 Uchida et al. (hereinafter Uchida).
8. Regarding Claim 3, Dutton in view of Wiklof discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 1,
Dutton discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Fig. 1A: 108; Col. 4 lines 19-20, “The image projection device 100 further includes processing and control circuitry 108”), further cause the image projection apparatus (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”) to:
perform brightness correction for pixels of the input image, based on the first projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Col. 5 lines 55-57, “the control circuitry 108 adjusts the laser drive signals LDS to increase the power of the light beams 106 generated by the laser diodes 114.” Based on Col. 4 lines 20-21, “the imaging distance signal IDS.” Dutton’s multi-zone embodiment further ties this to per-region projection-plane geometry (skew/curvature)),
Wiklof discloses the brightness variation coefficient (page 13 line 28-page 14 line 2, “screen response is saved as offsets from input pixel values, such as in a LUT. The offsets are allowed to vary as a function of input pixel value…the data in the LUT corresponds to a multiplicative relationship between the screen response and the value of the input pixel data.” Applied by Page 3 lines 19-20, “multiplying input pixel values by the inverse of corresponding screen responses to derive compensated pixel values.”)
However, Dutton in view of Wiklof does not explicitly disclose obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector; and the optical deviation correction coefficient.
determine a first projection plane deviation correction coefficient based on length information about projection beams to display display pixels of the projection region; and
Mayer teaches obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector and the optical deviation correction coefficient. And the optical deviation correction coefficient. (Col. 12 lines 44-49, “the correction of optical vignetting, also known as "hot spotting." The effects of the physics of projection lenses may cause hot spotting due to limitations on the projection lens designs. This phenomenon is apparent as a brightness decrease from the center of an image to an edge or corner.” Further Col. 12 lines 54-59, “This problem can also be corrected using the three dimensional smoothing factors lookup table to specifically adjust and even out the brightness across the combined projected images to ensure that the brightness is constant, even in the centers of the individual images.” i.e., a stored coefficient (a “smoothing factor”, applied per pixel/detail element by multiplication) superficially generated to compensate for the projection lens’s own vignetting characteristic);
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Mayer’s lens-vignetting correction because Mayer identifies this as a known, separate, and additive source of brightness irregularity in projected images “hot spotting” caused by “the physics of projection lenses”. Combing the two addresses two independent, well-recognized causes of the same symptom (uneven projected brightness) and Mayer itself teaches that multiple correction factors can be layered into a single lookup table architecture.
Further, Uchida teaches determine a first projection plane deviation correction coefficient based on length information about projection beams to display display pixels of the projection region (Col. 14 lines 60-63, “The length of the optical path of the image projection light 20 from the image projector 11 to the projection-target surface 32 is also referred to as the projection optical path length.” This per-region beam length is calculated on a pixel/region basis: Col. 16 lines, “the first controller 15 may calculate the projection optical path length on the basis of the display position of the image. The first controller 15 may calculate the area (Sk) of the k.sup.th region 24-k on the basis of the projection optical path length.” The coefficient generated from that beam-length data and applied to correct brightness: Col. 15 lines 15-25, “The first controller 15 may control the intensity of the image projection light 20 so that the brightness of the display image 21 becomes substantially equal, regardless of the projection optical path length. When projecting the image projection light 20 onto the fourth region 24-4 that has a relatively small area… the first controller 15 may reduce the intensity of the image projection light 20. When projecting the image projection light 20 onto the fifth region 24-5 that has a relatively large area, as in the example in FIG. 10B, the first controller 15 may increase the intensity.” This is a length of beam derived, per display pixel region correction value.);
A POSTIA designing a projector aimed at comprehensively correcting brightness irregularity would have looked to all three known correction mechanisms and combined them using each reference’s own disclosed technique of multiplicative coefficient combination (as Dutton and Mayer each independently teach), arriving at claim 3’s three-coefficient brightness correction with a reasonable expectation of success and no unpredictable results.
9. Claim 13 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in apparatus claim 3.
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.
10. Claim(s) 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Wiklof as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 6115022 Mayer et al. (hereinafter Mayer) further in view of U.S. Patent 9723280 Kobayashi et al. (hereinafter Kobayashi).
11. Regarding Claim 4, Dutton in view of Wiklof discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 1,
Dutton discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Fig. 1A: 108; Col. 4 lines 19-20, “The image projection device 100 further includes processing and control circuitry 108”), further cause the image projection apparatus (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”) to:
perform brightness correction for pixels of the input image, based on the first projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Col. 5 lines 55-57, “the control circuitry 108 adjusts the laser drive signals LDS to increase the power of the light beams 106 generated by the laser diodes 114.” Based on Col. 4 lines 20-21, “the imaging distance signal IDS.” Dutton’s multi-zone embodiment further ties this to per-region projection-plane geometry (skew/curvature)),
Wiklof discloses the brightness variation coefficient (page 13 line 28-page 14 line 2, “screen response is saved as offsets from input pixel values, such as in a LUT. The offsets are allowed to vary as a function of input pixel value…the data in the LUT corresponds to a multiplicative relationship between the screen response and the value of the input pixel data.” Applied by Page 3 lines 19-20, “multiplying input pixel values by the inverse of corresponding screen responses to derive compensated pixel values.”)
However, Dutton in view of Wiklof does not explicitly disclose obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector; and the optical deviation correction coefficient.
determine a second projection plane deviation correction coefficient, based on direction
information about projection beams to display display pixels of the projection region; and
Mayer teaches obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector, and the optical deviation correction coefficient. (Col. 12 lines 44-49, “the correction of optical vignetting, also known as "hot spotting." The effects of the physics of projection lenses may cause hot spotting due to limitations on the projection lens designs. This phenomenon is apparent as a brightness decrease from the center of an image to an edge or corner.” Further Col. 12 lines 54-59, “This problem can also be corrected using the three dimensional smoothing factors lookup table to specifically adjust and even out the brightness across the combined projected images to ensure that the brightness is constant, even in the centers of the individual images.” i.e., a stored coefficient (a “smoothing factor”, applied per pixel/detail element by multiplication) superficially generated to compensate for the projection lens’s own vignetting characteristic);
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Mayer’s lens-vignetting correction because Mayer identifies this as a known, separate, and additive source of brightness irregularity in projected images “hot spotting” caused by “the physics of projection lenses”. Combing the two addresses two independent, well-recognized causes of the same symptom (uneven projected brightness) and Mayer itself teaches that multiple correction factors can be layered into a single lookup table architecture.
Further, Kobayashi teaches determine a second projection plane deviation correction coefficient, based on direction information about projection beams to display display pixels of the projection region (Col. 5 Lines 40-47 “the correction table calculation unit of the projection-type image display device according to claim 1 generates mirror angle information corresponding to an outer circumference portion of the input image on the basis of the input image parameter and the mirror-parameter, performs ray tracing on an emission direction of light emitted from the light source”…Col. 4 Lines 24-36, “an extent of beams in each brightness distortion correction table position on the basis of the mirror-model, calculates a position and the extent of the beams on the projection object… and calculates a beam diffusion brightness distortion correction amount for reducing beam brightness in each brightness distortion correction table calculation position on the basis of the extent degree of the beams.” The direction (emission direction/beam angle) of each projection beam is calculated via ray tracing, and that direction data is used to derive a per-pixel position brightness distortion correction amount which is then multiplied against the pixel’s brightness value: Col. 21 lies53-56, “The image correction unit 303 performs, at the time of retiming, brightness distortion correction by multiplying brightness before brightness distortion correction by the corresponding brightness distortion correction amount W.” Col. 22 lines 26-31, “the brightness distortion correction amount calculation unit 1210 unifies the beam diffusion correction amount W.sub.2 and the beam overlap correction amount W.sub.1… to set the unified correction amount as the brightness distortion correction amount W.”);
A POSITA implementing Dutton’s distance-sensor (TOF) driven correction scheme would have looked to Kobayashi’s more granular, ray-traced, direction based correction methodology as a known refinement of the same brightness uniformity problem, substituting Dutton’s magnitude-only (distance-based) correction with Kobayashi’s direction-aware correction for improved accuracy, a combination of known techniques according to their established functions, yielding predictable results.
12. Claim 14 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in apparatus claim 4.
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.
13. Claim(s) 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Wiklof as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 6115022 Mayer et al. (hereinafter Mayer) further in view of U.S. Patent 9942442 Takeishi.
14. Regarding Claim 5, Dutton in view of Wiklof discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 1,
Dutton discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Fig. 1A: 108; Col. 4 lines 19-20, “The image projection device 100 further includes processing and control circuitry 108”), further cause the image projection apparatus (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”) to:
perform brightness correction for pixels of the input image, based on the first projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Col. 5 lines 55-57, “the control circuitry 108 adjusts the laser drive signals LDS to increase the power of the light beams 106 generated by the laser diodes 114.” Based on Col. 4 lines 20-21, “the imaging distance signal IDS.” Dutton’s multi-zone embodiment further ties this to per-region projection-plane geometry (skew/curvature)),
Wiklof discloses the brightness variation coefficient (page 13 line 28-page 14 line 2, “screen response is saved as offsets from input pixel values, such as in a LUT. The offsets are allowed to vary as a function of input pixel value…the data in the LUT corresponds to a multiplicative relationship between the screen response and the value of the input pixel data.” Applied by Page 3 lines 19-20, “multiplying input pixel values by the inverse of corresponding screen responses to derive compensated pixel values.”)
However, Dutton in view of Wiklof does not explicitly disclose obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector; and the optical deviation correction coefficient.
determine a second projection plane deviation correction coefficient based on an
incident angle by a normal vector corresponding to a position of a target pixel on the projection
plane and a beam vector of the target pixel;
Mayer teaches obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector; and the optical deviation correction coefficient. (Col. 12 lines 44-49, “the correction of optical vignetting, also known as "hot spotting." The effects of the physics of projection lenses may cause hot spotting due to limitations on the projection lens designs. This phenomenon is apparent as a brightness decrease from the center of an image to an edge or corner.” Further Col. 12 lines 54-59, “This problem can also be corrected using the three dimensional smoothing factors lookup table to specifically adjust and even out the brightness across the combined projected images to ensure that the brightness is constant, even in the centers of the individual images.” i.e., a stored coefficient (a “smoothing factor”, applied per pixel/detail element by multiplication) superficially generated to compensate for the projection lens’s own vignetting characteristic);
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Mayer’s lens-vignetting correction because Mayer identifies this as a known, separate, and additive source of brightness irregularity in projected images “hot spotting” caused by “the physics of projection lenses”. Combing the two addresses two independent, well-recognized causes of the same symptom (uneven projected brightness) and Mayer itself teaches that multiple correction factors can be layered into a single lookup table architecture.
Further, Takeishi teaches determine a second projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Claim 5 explicitly names the output of the calculation “IL…a reflection correction coefficient.” A coefficient, derived from the incident -angle/vector relationship, applied to correct the amount of light at the target point) based on an incident angle by a normal vector corresponding to a position of a target pixel on the projection plane (Claim 3, “The image reading apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit derives a normal vector of a surface of the object based on the distance image information.” Claim 2 establishes the positional/pixel basis for that surface data: “the measurement unit creates distance image information, which is raster bitmap image having four kinds of pixel values of R, G, B, and distance for each pixel.” Together, these disclose a normal vector derived, per pixel, from distance-image data of the target surface. The projection plane mapped to Takeishi’s “surface of the object” and “target pixel” mapped to per-pixel distance data.) and a beam vector of the target pixel (claim 5, “amount of light that is derived is calculated by expression below
I.sub.p=L.Math.N*I.sub.L where I.sub.p is an amount of light, L is a normalized vector of a vector that stretches from a point of interest of the object toward the irradiation unit, N is a normalized vector of a normal of the surface of the object at the point of interest, and I.sub.L is a reflection correction coefficient.” The vector L-running from the target point toward the irradiation unit (the light-emitting/projection source) -reads on “beam vector of the target pixel”, since it is the directional vector describing the beam’s path between the source and that specific point. THe expression IP=L*N*IL computes a dot product (L*N) between the normal vector N and the beam-direction vector L. A dot product of two normalized vectors is mathematically the cosine of the angle between them i.e, this expression is “an incident angle by a normal vector…and beam vector” expressed in its cosine form rather than as a raw angle in degrees.)
A POSITA implementing Dutton’s distance-sensor (TOF) based projection correction would have looked to Takeishi and Mayer to address two separate, well-known residual sources of brightness non-uniformity that Lim’s distance only correction leaves uncorrected. Combining known solutions to known, independently recognized problems, using each references own disclosed multiplicative combination mechanism, yields the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
15. Claim 15 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in apparatus claim 5.
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.
16. Claim(s) 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutton in view of Wiklof as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent 6115022 Mayer et al. (hereinafter Mayer) further in view of U.S. Patent 10917619 Uchida et al. (hereinafter Uchida) further in view of U.S. Patent 9942442 Takeishi.
17. Regarding Claim 6, Dutton in view of Wiklof discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 1,
Dutton discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (Fig. 1A: 108; Col. 4 lines 19-20, “The image projection device 100 further includes processing and control circuitry 108”), further cause the image projection apparatus (Abstract, “An image projection device, such as a pico projector or LCD projector”) to:
perform brightness correction for pixels of the input image, based on the first projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Col. 5 lines 55-57, “the control circuitry 108 adjusts the laser drive signals LDS to increase the power of the light beams 106 generated by the laser diodes 114.” Based on Col. 4 lines 20-21, “the imaging distance signal IDS.” Dutton’s multi-zone embodiment further ties this to per-region projection-plane geometry (skew/curvature)),
Wiklof discloses the brightness variation coefficient (page 13 line 28-page 14 line 2, “screen response is saved as offsets from input pixel values, such as in a LUT. The offsets are allowed to vary as a function of input pixel value…the data in the LUT corresponds to a multiplicative relationship between the screen response and the value of the input pixel data.” Applied by Page 3 lines 19-20, “multiplying input pixel values by the inverse of corresponding screen responses to derive compensated pixel values.”)
However, Dutton in view of Wiklof does not explicitly disclose obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector; and the optical deviation correction coefficient.
determine a first projection plane deviation correction coefficient based on length information about projection beams to display display pixels of the projection region;
determine a second projection plane deviation correction coefficient based on an incident angle by a normal vector corresponding to a position of a target pixel on the projection plane and a beam vector of the target pixel;
Mayer teaches obtain an optical deviation correction coefficient reflecting a vignetting characteristic of a lens in the image projector, and the optical deviation correction coefficient. (Col. 12 lines 44-49, “the correction of optical vignetting, also known as "hot spotting." The effects of the physics of projection lenses may cause hot spotting due to limitations on the projection lens designs. This phenomenon is apparent as a brightness decrease from the center of an image to an edge or corner.” Further Col. 12 lines 54-59, “This problem can also be corrected using the three dimensional smoothing factors lookup table to specifically adjust and even out the brightness across the combined projected images to ensure that the brightness is constant, even in the centers of the individual images.” i.e., a stored coefficient (a “smoothing factor”, applied per pixel/detail element by multiplication) superficially generated to compensate for the projection lens’s own vignetting characteristic);
A POSITA would have been motivated to incorporate Mayer’s lens-vignetting correction because Mayer identifies this as a known, separate, and additive source of brightness irregularity in projected images “hot spotting” caused by “the physics of projection lenses”. Combing the two addresses two independent, well-recognized causes of the same symptom (uneven projected brightness) and Mayer itself teaches that multiple correction factors can be layered into a single lookup table architecture.
Further, Uchida teaches determine a first projection plane deviation correction coefficient based on length information about projection beams to display display pixels of the projection region (Col. 14 lines 60-63, “The length of the optical path of the image projection light 20 from the image projector 11 to the projection-target surface 32 is also referred to as the projection optical path length.” This per-region beam length is calculated on a pixel/region basis: Col. 16 lines, “the first controller 15 may calculate the projection optical path length on the basis of the display position of the image. The first controller 15 may calculate the area (Sk) of the k.sup.th region 24-k on the basis of the projection optical path length.” The coefficient generated from that beam-length data and applied to correct brightness: Col. 15 lines 15-25, “The first controller 15 may control the intensity of the image projection light 20 so that the brightness of the display image 21 becomes substantially equal, regardless of the projection optical path length. When projecting the image projection light 20 onto the fourth region 24-4 that has a relatively small area… the first controller 15 may reduce the intensity of the image projection light 20. When projecting the image projection light 20 onto the fifth region 24-5 that has a relatively large area, as in the example in FIG. 10B, the first controller 15 may increase the intensity.” This is a length of beam derived, per display pixel region correction value.);
A POSTIA designing a projector aimed at comprehensively correcting brightness irregularity would have looked to all three known correction mechanisms and combined them using each reference’s own disclosed technique of multiplicative coefficient combination (as Dutton and Mayer each independently teach), arriving at claim 6’s three-coefficient brightness correction with a reasonable expectation of success and no unpredictable results.
Further, Takeishi teaches determine a second projection plane deviation correction coefficient (Claim 5 explicitly names the output of the calculation “IL…a reflection correction coefficient.” A coefficient, derived from the incident -angle/vector relationship, applied to correct the amount of light at the target point) based on an incident angle by a normal vector corresponding to a position of a target pixel on the projection plane (Claim 3, “The image reading apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the determination unit derives a normal vector of a surface of the object based on the distance image information.” Claim 2 establishes the positional/pixel basis for that surface data: “the measurement unit creates distance image information, which is raster bitmap image having four kinds of pixel values of R, G, B, and distance for each pixel.” Together, these disclose a normal vector derived, per pixel, from distance-image data of the target surface. The projection plane mapped to Takeishi’s “surface of the object” and “target pixel” mapped to per-pixel distance data.) and a beam vector of the target pixel (claim 5, “amount of light that is derived is calculated by expression below
I.sub.p=L.Math.N*I.sub.L where I.sub.p is an amount of light, L is a normalized vector of a vector that stretches from a point of interest of the object toward the irradiation unit, N is a normalized vector of a normal of the surface of the object at the point of interest, and I.sub.L is a reflection correction coefficient.” The vector L-running from the target point toward the irradiation unit (the light-emitting/projection source) -reads on “beam vector of the target pixel”, since it is the directional vector describing the beam’s path between the source and that specific point. THe expression IP=L*N*IL computes a dot product (L*N) between the normal vector N and the beam-direction vector L. A dot product of two normalized vectors is mathematically the cosine of the angle between them i.e, this expression is “an incident angle by a normal vector…and beam vector” expressed in its cosine form rather than as a raw angle in degrees.)
A POSITA implementing Dutton’s distance-sensor (TOF) based projection correction would have looked to Takeishi and Mayer to address two separate, well-known residual sources of brightness non-uniformity that Lim’s distance only correction leaves uncorrected. Combining known solutions to known, independently recognized problems, using each references own disclosed multiplicative combination mechanism, yields the predictable result with a reasonable expectation of success.
18. Claim 16 is a method claim, rejected with respect to the same limitation rejected in apparatus claim 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 17-20 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.
Regarding Claim 7 Dutton in view of Wiklof in view of Mayer further in view of Uchida discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 3,
Dutton in view of Wiklof in view of Mayer further in view of Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the image projection apparatus to obtain the optical deviation correction coefficient corresponding to each of a plurality of partial display regions from a lookup table set based on the vignetting characteristic, and
wherein the plurality of partial display regions are projection regions obtained by dividing the projection region based on a change in the vignetting characteristic.
Claim 8 depends on claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9 Dutton in view of Wiklof in view of Mayer further in view of Uchida discloses The image projection apparatus of claim 3,
Lim in view of Mayer further in view of Uchida does not explicitly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the image projection apparatus to:
determine an inter-beam angle between a first projection beam for displaying a center pixel of the projection region and a second projection beam for displaying a specific pixel; and
obtain the optical deviation correction coefficient corresponding to at least one target pixel in the display pixels based on the inter-beam angle.
Claim 10 depends on claim 9.
Claim 17 is a method claim, objected with respect to the same limitation objected in apparatus claim 7.
17. The method of claim 13, wherein the obtaining the optical deviation correction coefficient comprises obtaining the optical deviation correction coefficient corresponding to each of a plurality of partial display regions from a lookup table set based on the vignetting characteristic, and
wherein the plurality of partial display regions are obtained by dividing the projection
region, based on a change in the vignetting characteristic.
Claim 18 is a method claim, objected with respect to the same limitation objected in apparatus claim 8.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein the optical deviation correction coefficient has a relatively larger value in a first partial display region distant from a center point of the projection region than in a second partial display region near the center point.
Claim 19 is a method claim, objected with respect to the same limitation objected in apparatus claim 9.
19. The method of claim 13, wherein the obtaining the optical deviation correction coefficient, comprises:
determining an inter-beam angle between a first projection beam for displaying a center
pixel of the projection region and a second projection beam for displaying a specific pixel; and
obtaining the optical deviation correction coefficient corresponding to at least one target
pixel in the display pixels based on the inter-beam angle.
Claim 20 is a method claim, objected with respect to the same limitation objected in apparatus claim 10.
20. The method of claim 19, wherein the optical deviation correction coefficient has a relatively larger value for a first target pixel having a smaller inter-beam angle than for a second target pixel having a larger inter-beam angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. 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.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights