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 § 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujimoto (US 2024/0146865) in view of Imaizumi (US 2015/0138222).
Regarding claim 1, Fujimoto discloses a correction value calculation method comprising:
calculating, based on a target tone value, a first color unevenness correction value for correcting color unevenness of a first image for each of a plurality of first correction points included in a first portion of the first image, the first image including the first portion projected from a first projection apparatus onto a projection surface and overlapping, on the projection surface, a second image projected by a second projection apparatus onto the projection surface and a second portion projected from the first projection apparatus onto the projection surface and not overlapping the second image on the projection surface (calculating a color unevenness correction value for each projector based on a target color and an output characteristic of a liquid crystal light valve, wherein multiple projectors project overlapping images; see at least paragraphs 0017-0019 and 0123-0125); and
based on the first color unevenness correction value, for the second portion, generates color correction data for each projector; see at least paragraphs 00124-0125.
Fujimoto is not clear about calculating a brightness correction value for performing brightness correction for reducing a difference in brightness of black between a first portion and a second portion on a projection surface.
Imaizumi discloses the above missing limitations; a correction value is added to each pixel value corresponding to the image projected by the projector to make the luminance of the whole projection region constant; see at least Figs. 9A-9C and paragraphs 0005-0006, 0009 and 0011.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Fujimoto by the teachings of Imaizumi by having the above limitations so to be able to correct the luminance of the screen; see at least paragraph 0005.
Regarding claim 2, Fujimoto in view of Imaizumi disclose the correction value calculation method according to claim 1, further comprising calculating, based on the brightness correction value, for each of a plurality of second correction points included in the second portion, a second color unevenness correction value for correcting the color unevenness of the first image (the color unevenness correction value for each projector; Fujimoto; see at least paragraphs 0123-0124 in combination with Imaizumi’s brightness correction value; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Fujimoto in view of Imaizumi disclose the correction value calculation method according to claim 2, wherein the calculating the brightness correction value includes:
calculating a provisional brightness correction value for each of a plurality of third correction points adjacent to the first portion among the plurality of second correction points based on the first color unevenness correction value of the first correction point adjacent to each of the plurality of third correction points among the plurality of first correction points; and
calculating the brightness correction value for the second portion by statistically processing the provisional brightness correction value for the plurality of third correction points (the claim does not distinguish between the brightness correction value and the provisional brightness correction value, therefore, they are interpreted to be the same; the combination of Fujimoto’s color unevenness correction and Imaizumi’s brightness correction value; as in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Fujimoto in view of Imaizumi disclose the correction value calculation method according to claim 3, wherein the calculating the provisional brightness correction value is calculating, for each of the plurality of third correction points, the provisional brightness correction value in a case in which, for each of the plurality of third correction points, the second color unevenness correction value is made equal to the first color unevenness correction value of the first correction point adjacent to each of the plurality of third correction points (the combination of Fujimoto’s color unevenness correction and Imaizumi’s brightness correction value; as in the rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Fujimoto in view of Imaizumi disclose the correction value calculation method according to claim 3, wherein the calculating the second color unevenness correction value includes calculating, for each of the plurality of third correction points, the second color unevenness correction value based on the brightness correction value for the second portion (the color unevenness correction value for each projector; Fujimoto; see at least paragraphs 0123-0124 in combination with Imaizumi’s brightness correction value; see at least the rejection of claim 1).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected on the same grounds as claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YASSIN ALATA whose telephone number is (571)270-5683. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 ET.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at 571-272-4195. 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.
/YASSIN ALATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights