DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments change scope and boundaries of previous claim set, thereby necessitating a new grounds.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to below claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15-16, & 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawlinson (CN 104648267 B) in view of Xing (CN 105895042 A).
With respect to claim 1, Rawlinson discloses: a method for operating a display system (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, the seat, display, all the circuitry, and connecting rods/linkage system = claimed display system), the method comprising:
moving a user using a moving device comprising a moving unit configured to support the user (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, the seat = claimed moving device, that includes the rods/linkages with respect to the display = claimed moving unit);
determining a viewing angle of the user based on movement information of the moving unit; obtaining one of compensation parameters corresponding to the viewing angle from a memory of the display system; and generating compensation data for a display device based on the one of the compensation parameters (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, memory 817, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, compensation values are respectfully based on user’s sitting position, and modifies display image position to be in a viewable position).
Rawlinson fails to disclose: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device.
However, Xing discloses: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device (Xing: figs. 3-4, disclosed in abstract & ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0045]).
Xing and Rawlinson are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the display system, as taught by Rawlinson, to include: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device, as taught by Xing, in order to improve offset color (Xing: abstract).
With respect to claim 7, Rawlinson in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, further comprising: outputting an image through the display device based on the compensation data; receiving sub-viewing angle data regarding a changed viewing angle that is different from the viewing angle; determining a second one of the compensation parameters corresponding to the changed viewing angle; and generating second compensation data based on the second one of the compensation parameters (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, memory 817, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, compensation values are respectfully based on user’s sitting position, and modifies display image position to be in a viewable position; additionally, please note, figs. 11-12 with respect to changing a sub-viewing horizontal viewing angle).
With respect to claim 9, Rawlinson discloses: a display system (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, the seat, display, all the circuitry, and connecting rods/linkage system = claimed display system) comprising:
a display device for outputting an image based on compensation data; a moving device comprising a moving unit configured to support a user of the display device and to move the user (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, display device 101, the seat = claimed moving device, that includes the rods/linkages with respect to the display = claimed moving unit; additionally, please note, display image position is modified to be in a viewable position); and
a compensating device configured to provide the compensation data to the display device, and comprising: a memory configured to store compensation parameters respectively corresponding to viewing angles; and a compensation data generator configured to determine a viewing angle of the user based on movement information of the moving unit, to obtain one of the compensation parameters corresponding to the viewing angle from the memory, and to generate the compensation data based on the one of the compensation parameters (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, memory 817 & compensation data generator 805, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, compensation values are respectfully based on user’s sitting position, and modifies display image position to be in a viewable position).
Rawlinson fails to disclose: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device.
However, Xing discloses: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device (Xing: figs. 3-4, disclosed in abstract & ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0045]).
Xing and Rawlinson are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the display system, as taught by Rawlinson, to include: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device, as taught by Xing, in order to improve offset color (Xing: abstract).
With respect to claim 15, Rawlinson in combination above discloses: the display system of claim 9, wherein the display device is implemented as a vehicle display device (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, title).
With respect to claim 16, Rawlinson discloses: an electronic device (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, the seat, display, all the circuitry, and connecting rods/linkage system = claimed electronic device) comprising:
a processor (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, processor 805, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]);
a display device configured to display an image according to a control of the processor; and a moving device comprising a moving unit configured to support a user of the display device and to move the user (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, display device 101, the seat = claimed moving device, that includes the rods/linkages with respect to the display = claimed moving unit; additionally, please note, display image position is modified to be in a viewable position),
wherein the processor: comprises a memory configured to store compensation parameters respectively corresponding to viewing angles; is configured to determine a viewing angle of the user based on movement information of the moving unit; is configured to obtain one of the compensation parameters corresponding to the viewing angle from the memory; is configured to generate compensation data based on the one of the compensation parameters; and is configured to provide the generated compensation data to the display device (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, memory 817 & processor 805, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, compensation values are respectfully based on user’s sitting position, and modifies display image position to be in a viewable position).
Rawlinson fails to disclose: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device.
However, Xing discloses: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device (Xing: figs. 3-4, disclosed in abstract & ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0045]).
Xing and Rawlinson are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the display system, as taught by Rawlinson, to include: wherein the compensation parameters include values for correcting a color deflection pattern visible in an image displayed by the display device, the values including offset values or gamma correction values for adjusting luminance of light emitted by a sub-pixel of the display device, as taught by Xing, in order to improve offset color (Xing: abstract).
With respect to claim 20, Rawlinson in combination above discloses: the electronic device of claim 16, wherein the processor is further configured to: output the image through the display device based on the compensation data; receive sub-viewing angle data regarding a changed viewing angle that is different from the viewing angle; determine a second one of the compensation parameters corresponding to the changed viewing angle; and generate second compensation data based on the second one of the compensation parameters (Rawlinson: figs. 1-4, 8-15, & 17-18, memory 817, disclosed in ¶ [0035]- ¶ [0039], ¶ [0041]- ¶ [0053]; please note, compensation values are respectfully based on user’s sitting position, and modifies display image position to be in a viewable position; additionally, please note, figs. 11-12 with respect to changing a sub-viewing horizontal viewing angle).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 6 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rawlinson in combination above in view of Ma (CN 115431890 A).
With respect to claim 6, Rawlinson in combination above discloses: the method of claim 1, but fails to disclose: wherein the determining the viewing angle comprises: capturing an image of an eye of the user; generating visual sensing data based on the image; and determining the viewing angle based on the visual sensing data.
However, Ma discloses: wherein the determining the viewing angle comprises: capturing an image of an eye of the user; generating visual sensing data based on the image; and determining the viewing angle based on the visual sensing data (Ma: fig. 1, element 101, disclosed in ¶ [0045]- ¶ [0047], ¶ [0055]- ¶ [0056], & claims 1, 5, & 6).
Ma and Rawlinson in combination above are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the method for operating the display system of claim 1, as taught by Rawlinson, to include a camera and additional functionality/compensation data that respectfully provides - wherein the determining the viewing angle comprises: capturing an image of an eye of the user; generating visual sensing data based on the image; and determining the viewing angle based on the visual sensing data, as taught by Ma, in order to improve sensing quality of the passenger (Ma: ¶ [0028]).
With respect to claim 14, Rawlinson in combination above discloses: the display system of claim 9, but fails to disclose: wherein the display device comprises a camera configured to capture an image of an eye of the user, and wherein the compensating device is configured to generate visual sensing data based on the image, and to determine the viewing angle based on the visual sensing data.
However, Ma discloses: wherein the display device comprises a camera configured to capture an image of an eye of the user, and wherein the compensating device is configured to generate visual sensing data based on the image, and to determine the viewing angle based on the visual sensing data (Ma: fig. 1, element 101, disclosed in ¶ [0045]- ¶ [0047], ¶ [0055]- ¶ [0056], & claims 1, 5, & 6).
Ma and Rawlinson in combination above are considered to be analogous art because both are in the same field of endeavor related to display devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the display system of claim 9, as taught by Rawlinson, to include a camera and additional functionality/compensation data that respectfully provides - wherein the display device comprises a camera configured to capture an image of an eye of the user, and wherein the compensating device is configured to generate visual sensing data based on the image, and to determine the viewing angle based on the visual sensing data, as taught by Ma, in order to improve sensing quality of the passenger (Ma: ¶ [0028]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, & 17-19 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duane N. Taylor Jr. whose telephone number is (571) 272-4703. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Saturday [5:30am- 10pm].
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, Temesghen Ghebretinsae can be reached at (571) 272-3017. 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.
Duane N. Taylor Jr.
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2626
/DUANE N TAYLOR JR/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2626
