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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 9-14, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffin et al (US 2015/0279037; hereinafter Griffin).
• Regarding claims 1, 17, and 18, Griffin discloses a display correction apparatus, and corresponding method and non-transitory recording medium, (figures 3 and 5-8) comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (¶ 33); and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions (¶ 32) to:
acquire an image obtained by imaging a display device in a state where first data based on original data of display content is displayed (step 52 in figure 5 and ¶ 49);
specify a difference between a region of the image where the display device is imaged and the original data (step 54 in figure 5 and ¶ 49, in view of ¶s 46-48);
generate second data by correcting the first data in such a way as to eliminate the difference (step 56 in figure 5 and ¶ 49); and
display the second data on the display device (step 57 in figure 5 and ¶ 49).
• Regarding claims 2-7 and 9-14, Griffin discloses everything claimed, as applied to claims 1. Additionally, Griffin discloses where:
Claim 2: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
generate a display template for causing the display device to perform display in such a way as to eliminate the difference (at least suggested by ¶ 46); and
generate the second data by correcting the first data, based on the display template (¶s 46-49).
Claim 3: the display device is formed to display single display content by a plurality of the display devices (figure 2), and
the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
specify a display deviation, as the difference (¶ 46).
Claim 4: the display deviation is a display deviation caused by a non-display region that is not displayed, between display units of the plurality of display devices (figure 2 and ¶ 46).
Claim 5: the non-display region is at least one of a bezel of the display device and a gap between the plurality of display devices (figure 2 and ¶ 46).
Claim 6: the non-display region is a gap between the plurality of display devices (figure 2 and ¶ 46).
Claim 7: the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the second data in which a region related to the non-display region is deleted from the first data (figure 2 and ¶ 46).
Claim 9: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
detect arrangement information of the display device (figure 2 and ¶s 46 and 49); and
generate the second data further using the arrangement information (¶s 46 and 49).
Claim 10: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
specify a color difference between a color of a region of the captured image where the display device is imaged and the original data, as the difference (figure 6 and ¶s 48 and 52).
Claim 11: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
generate the second data on which correction for reducing the color difference from the first data has been performed (¶s 48-52).
Claim 12: the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
specify a color difference between the color of the region of the captured image where the display device is imaged and the original data, in a predetermined region of the display content, as the color difference (¶ 48).
Claim 13: the predetermined region is a region determined to be important in the display content (¶ 48; where all displays are determined to be important such that uniformity of color is determined).
Claim 14: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
detect an illuminance of the display device (¶s 30 and 48-52); and
acquire the image, in a case where a change in the illuminance is detected (¶ 49).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, in view of Takesue et al (US 2016/0155391; hereinafter Takesue).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin discloses everything claimed, as applied to claim 3. However, Griffin fails to disclose the additional details of the display correction apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Takesue discloses where:
Claim 8: the display deviation is an overlapping region where the display units of the plurality of display devices overlap (figure 8A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Griffin according to the teachings of Takesue, for the purpose of suppressing display or luminance unevenness despite the shape of a display region being changed (¶ 476).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, in view of Takahashi et al (US 2014/0240201; hereinafter Takahashi).
• Regarding claim 15, Griffin discloses everything claimed, as applied to claim 1. However, Griffin fails to disclose the additional details of the display correction apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Takahashi discloses where:
Claim 15: the one or more processors are configured to execute the instructions to:
in a case where the difference is equal to or less than a predetermined value, determine not to perform correction (¶ 131).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Griffin according to the teachings of Takahashi, for the purpose of performing multi-screen display at high image quality (¶ 133).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin, in view of Nayar et al (US 2024/0355239; hereinafter Nayar).
• Regarding claim 16, Griffin discloses everything claimed, as applied to claim 1. However, Griffin fails to disclose the additional details of the display correction apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Nayar discloses where:
Claim 16: the one or more processors are further configured to execute the instructions to:
detect vibration of the display device (¶ 116); and
in a case where the vibration is detected, acquire the image (¶ 116; where the claimed image acquisition is seen to be equivalent to the disclosed “recalibration or self-calibration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Griffin according to the teachings of Nayar, for the purpose of restoring a display system to proper functionality following a physical event (¶ 116).
Closing Remarks/Comments
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN DANIELSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4248. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at (571) 272-7603. 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.
/NATHAN DANIELSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights