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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/2025 regarding claims 1 and 8 has been fully considered. The highlighted arguments are listed below and will be addressed accordingly. Applicant has added claim 19.
Argument #1 (REMARKS, page 9): Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 8 overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 because,
“Nothing in Freeman teaches or suggests applying image distortion such that the image that appears correct (i.e., no longer has deformed parts) according to the user's vision. Accordingly, nothing in Freeman taches or suggests image correction that adjusting a deformed shaped part in a grid/grid group to be straight according to the user and applies the corrections thereof to an image.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and indicates that the cited Prior Art reasonably address limitations of the claimed invention. Applicant is reminded that Examiner will interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense, as such, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention.
The applicant has failed to produce evidence in the prior art that precludes the combination of Freeman and Chu from carrying out the steps in claims 1 and 8. The Examiner notes that Claims 1 and 8 do not state “applying image distortion such that the image that appears correct (i.e., no longer has deformed parts) according to the user's vision” or “image correction that adjusting a deformed shaped part in a grid/grid group to be straight according to the user and applies the corrections thereof to an image.” Freeman does suggest the noted features by disclosing a correction control signal that are coordinate transformation values applied to transform the initial image data to after correction image data in the coordinate system (see para. 0229, 0232). Also, Freeman discloses that once coordinate transformation values are established, the retinal map may be stored in the database and transferred to the display controller. In use, the retinal map may then be used to transform the image(s) received from the camera and generate the corrected image(s). The corrected image(s) may then be displayed in real-time via the display unit (see para. 0232).
Argument #2 (REMARKS, page 9-10): Applicant asserts that claims 1 and 8 overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 because,
“Chu is directed to correcting image distortion that occurs when presenting a virtual reality image to a user (see Chu, Abstract and paragraph [0005]). It is not obvious to modify a prior art invention to no longer serve its intended purpose (see MPEP § 2143.01). As discussed above, Freeman teaches applying/creating image distortion so that image data is not presented in the macular hole of a person's vision. Accordingly, it would not be obvious to apply the image distortion correction of Chu to correct the image distortion taught by Freeman as Freeman is directed to creating/displaying a distorted image to accommodate for the macular hole in a user's vision. Thus, it would not be obvious to apply Chu to the teaching of Freeman as suggested in the rejection.
Furthermore, Chu is directed to correcting image distortion that occurs when providing an increased field of view (FOV) of a virtual reality image to a user (see Chu, paragraph [0075]). Nothing in Freeman teaches or suggest providing an increased field of view to a user or presenting a virtual reality to a user. Thus, there would also be no reasonable basis to apply the teachings of Chu for addressing the image distortion that occurs when providing a virtual reality image to Freeman, as Freeman does not teach or suggest providing a virtual reality image. As such, the suggested combination of Freeman and Chu does not teach or suggest image correction of the to-be-corrected part adjusts a deformed shape of the to-be-corrected part to be straight within the grid/grid group according to the user, the processing unit performs calculation processing on the correction control signal to obtain variations of the to-be-corrected part before and after correction in the coordinate system, and the display unit is configured to display an image after visual distortion correction that applies the one or more combinations of the variations stored in the storage unit to the image, as recited by claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and indicates that the cited Prior Art reasonably address limitations of the claimed invention. Applicant is reminded that Examiner will interpret each claim in the broadest reasonable sense, as such, the claims and only the claims form the metes and bounds of the invention.
The applicant has failed to produce evidence in the prior art that precludes the combination of Freeman and Chu from carrying out the steps in claims 1 and 8. Chu does suggest the noted features by disclosing performing image distortion correction on to-be-adjusted grid points that are adjusted to straighten the grid line shape (see para. 0098, 0106). The prior art Freeman and Chu collectively include each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Freeman, while the teaching of Chu continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of transforming a deformed image region to a straight line on an image grid to properly correct deformed images. The Freeman and Chu systems perform image correction, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination.
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.
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 1-5, 7-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. (US 2019/0385342) in view of Chu et al. (US 2021/0358093).
Regarding claim 1, Freeman teaches a head-mounted electronic vision aid device, comprising a user input unit, a storage unit, a processing unit and a display unit, wherein
the display unit is configured to movably display a grid/grid group (see para. 0116, 0229, Freeman discusses displaying a plurality of cells arranged in a grid), the user input unit is configured to select one or more to-be-corrected parts in the grid/grid group according to real-time image feedback information viewed by a user (see figure 18, figure 20, Freeman discusses providing user feedback; see claim 2, para. 0101, 0225, 0246, Freeman discusses the user can view the grid and use a fiducial marker to identify edge regions and manipulate the edge regions),
wherein for each of the one or more to-be-corrected parts, the user input unit sends a correction control signal for performing image correction on the to-be-corrected part in a coordinate system where the grid/grid group is currently located to the processing unit (see para. 0116, Freeman discusses FOY data may include a plurality of cells arranged in a grid; see para. 0236, 0249, Freeman discusses performing image distortion on a FOV grid mapping test; see para. 0269, 0273-0274, Freeman discusses indicating the region to be corrected),
the processing unit performs calculation processing on the correction control signal to obtain variations of the to-be-corrected part before and after correction in the coordinate system (see para. 0229, 0232, Freeman discusses correction control signal that are coordinate transformation values applied to transform the initial image data to after correction image data in the coordinate system; see para. 0248-0249, 0286, Freeman discusses a FOV grid mapping test to view variations on the coordinate grid),
the storage unit is configured to store one or more combinations of the variations of obtained for the one or more to-be-corrected parts (see para. 0105, 0109, Freeman discusses database for storing visual model of users; see para. 0229-0232, Freeman discusses a database that stores a retinal map that boundary data of area to be corrected in the visual grid), and
the display unit is configured to display an image after visual distortion correction that applies the one or more combinations of the variations stored in the storage unit to the image (see para. 0232, Freeman discusses once coordinate transformation values are established, the retinal map may be stored in the database and transferred to the display controller. In use, the retinal map may then be used to transform the image(s) received from the camera and generate the corrected image(s). The corrected image(s) may then be displayed in real-time via the display unit; see para. 0249, 0253, 0256, 0269, 0272-0273, Freeman discusses generating and displaying the corrected digital FOV grid model and storing the model in a database).
Freeman does not expressly disclose the image correction of the to-be-corrected part adjusts a deformed shape of the to-be-corrected part to be straight within the grid/grid group according to the user. However, Chu teaches the image correction of the to-be-corrected part adjusts a deformed shape of the to-be-corrected part to be straight within the grid/grid group according to the user (see para. 0098, 0106, Chu discusses performing image distortion correction on to-be-adjusted grid points that are adjusted to straighten the grid line shape).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 1. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Freeman in this manner in order to improve image distortion correction by applying image correction to transform a deformed image region into a straight line. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Freeman, while the teaching of Chu continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of transforming a deformed image region to a straight line on an image grid to properly correct deformed images. The Freeman and Chu systems perform image correction, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 2, Freeman teaches wherein the processing unit is configured to control the grid/grid group of the coordinate system to automatically move a set stepping distance within a maximum interval range of any adjacent grid lines in the grid/grid group (see para. 0118, 0230, Freeman discusses the distance of the specific pixel or ray from the border of the defect; see figure 9, para. 0230, Freeman discusses the coordinate transformation values (li.X, li. Y) for any data point lying on the ray may be calculated based on the length of the distance from the center point 36 to the boundary 32, and the length from the center point 36 to the respective edge of the image).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 2. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 2. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 3, Freeman teaches wherein the user input unit can also sends a movement control signal for moving the grid/grid group in the coordinate system to the processing unit, and the processing unit is configured to control the grid/grid group displayed by the display unit to move on demand within a maximum interval range of any adjacent grid lines in the grid/grid group according to the movement control signal (see para. 0118, 0230, Freeman discusses the distance of the specific pixel or ray from the border of the defect; see figure 9, para. 0230, Freeman discusses the coordinate transformation values (li.X, li. Y) for any data point lying on the ray may be calculated based on the length of the distance from the center point 36 to the boundary 32, and the length from the center point 36 to the respective edge of the image).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 3. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 3. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 4, Freeman teaches further comprising: an eye-tracking unit configured to detect a change in a gazing target of the user, the coordinate system is displaced synchronously following the gazing target of the user, and wherein the display unit is configured to apply the one or more combinations of the variations stored in the storage unit on the coordinate system after the synchronous displacement, and the display unit displays the image after visual distortion correction (see para. 0160, Freeman discusses eye-tracking information may be correlated with the buffered information about the person's eye visual defect such that when the manipulated image is displayed, it is in sync with the user's gaze. The user's eye gaze so that the buffered hole and the user's defect align and remain in sync).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 4. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 4. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 5, Freeman teaches wherein the user input unit is one of a mouse, a remote controller, a button, a gesture recognition device, or a voice recognition device (see para. 0246, Freeman discusses user feedback device, such as a PC with a mouse, tablet, and mobile phone), and the variations are a plurality of coordinate variable arrays (see para. 0229, 0232, Freeman discusses correction control signal that are coordinate transformation values applied to transform the image data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 5. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 5. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 7, Freeman teaches wherein a distance between adjacent grid lines in the grid/grid group is adjustable on demand (see para. 0118, Freeman discusses adjusting pixels/rays based on the distance of the specific pixel or ray from the border of the defect).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 7. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 7. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 9 is rejected as applied to claim 2 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 10 is rejected as applied to claim 3 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 11 is rejected as applied to claim 4 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Claim 12 is rejected as applied to claim 5 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 13, Freeman teaches further comprising after the user input unit sending the correction control signal and prior to the processing unit performing the calculation processing: confirming by the user of the correction control signal (see figure 18, figure 21, para. 0249, Freeman discusses user feedback to confirm correction on image data).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 13. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 13. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Claim 15 is rejected as applied to claim 7 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Regarding claim 16, Freeman teaches wherein the storing of the one or more combinations by the storage unit stores the one or more combinations of the variations of the one or more to-be corrected parts of different users or of the same user at different time points, and repeating the selecting of one or more to-be-corrected parts, the sending of the correction control signal, obtaining the variations according to the to-be-corrected parts, and the storing of the combination of the variations, on a basis of calling the one or more combinations (see para. 0232, Freeman discusses coordinate transformation values are established, the retinal map may be stored in the database and transferred to the display controller 16. In use, the retinal map may then be used to transform the image(s) received from the camera and generate the corrected image. The database stores data to repeat the correction process).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 16. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 16. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 17, Freeman teaches wherein the grid/grid group is a grid formed of intersecting horizontal grid lines and vertical grid lines (see para. 0224, 0229, Freeman discusses Amsler grid with horizontal and vertical lines may have been included in the software to be projected; see para. 0225, Freeman discusses the visual grid, and mapping routine performed on a Amsler grid or moving objects to check the UFOY, or both, utilizing an existing FOY map to modify and optimize).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 17. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 17. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 18, Freeman teaches wherein the one or more combinations of the variations obtained for the one or more to-be-corrected parts correspond to corrections of the to-be-corrected parts to be straight in the grid/grid group as viewed by the user (see para. 0229-0231, Freeman discusses Amsler grid with horizontal and vertical lines are transformation; see figure 22, para. 0224, 0232-0233, Freeman discusses a grid with normal straight grid lines, therefore corrected parts are straightened).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 18. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 18. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Regarding claim 19, Freeman teaches wherein the applying the one or more combinations of the variations stored in the storage unit to the image is configured to correct a visual distortion in the image as viewed by the user (see para. 0253, 0257, Freeman discusses corrected (for that user) version is also displayed onto a portion of the glasses or lenses, where only the portion of the field of view which needs to be adjusted is modified; see para. 0272, Freeman discusses a display unit may be coupled to the display controller and configured to receive the corrected image to present the corrected image to the eye of the user).
The same motivation of claim 1 is applied to claim 19. Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman with Chu to derive at the invention of claim 19. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman et al. (US 2019/0385342) in view of Chu et al. (US 2021/0358093) in view of Macy et al. (US 6,538,691).
Regarding claim 6, Chu teaches wherein the correction control signal comprises for at least one of the one or more to-be-corrected parts, a signal for causing one or more sides of the to-be-corrected part to bend, elongate, or tilt to correct the to-be-corrected part in the coordinate system (see para. 0106, Chu discusses correction image distortion on to-be-adjusted grid points are adjusted to straighten the grid lines). Freeman and Chu do not expressly disclose the bend, elongate, or tilt making the one or more sides straight. However, Macy teaches the bend, elongate, or tilt making the one or more sides straight (see figure 5, col. 5 lines 26-37, Macy discusses correcting the distorted grid shape by bending the curved lines to be straight).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Freeman and Chu with Macy to derive at the invention of claim 6. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform image distortion correction.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Freeman and Chu in this manner in order to improve image distortion correction by applying image correction to transform a deformed image region into a straight line. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Freeman and Chu, while the teaching of Macy continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of transforming a deformed image region to a straight line to properly correct an image grid. The Freeman, Chu, and Macy systems perform image correction, therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 14 is rejected as applied to claim 6 as pertaining to a corresponding method.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663