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
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.
Claims 1, 5-8, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashra et al. (US PGPub. No. 2017/0374333 A1) in view of Shimaoka et al. (US PGPub. No. 2019/0114801 A1). In Reference to Claim 1 Ashra teaches (Claim 1) A dynamic projection mapping system, comprising: a projector configured to project visible light (items 130, fig. 1, paragraph 0042); a calibration assembly comprising an emitter configured to emit infrared light (paragraph 0026, lines 9-17); a tracking sensor configured to detect the infrared light emitted by the emitter (items 106 / 120, fig. 1, paragraphs 0029, 0030, and 0031); and one or more processors configured to perform a calibration to align the projector and the tracking sensor based on sensor signals received from the sensor and from the tracking sensor (paragraphs 0038 and 0042). Ashra fails to teach an additional visible light sensor. Shimaoka teaches a sensor configured to detect the visible light projected by [a] projector (fig's 1 and 2, item 53). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the calibrating projection system of Ashra with the feature of a visible light sensor as taught by the calibrating projection system of Shimaoka for the purpose of allowing for additional position and distance sensing, providing a more accurate location for a target object as taught by Shimaoka (paragraph 0038), making the system more accurate, more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
The modified device of Ashra teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above. Ashra further teaches wherein [part of] the calibration assembly is coupled to a prop (paragraph 0026); (Claim 5) wherein the tracking sensor is configured to track the prop based on detection of one or more trackers coupled to the prop (paragraphs 0029 and 0031) and the projector is configured to project images onto the prop as the prop moves through a show space (paragraphs 0042 and 0043). Ashra fails to teach all of the claimed calibration assembly coupled to a prop. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have located all of a calibration assembly on a prop simply as a matter of engineering design choice, since, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since the operation of calibrating and projecting images onto a prop using a variety of tracking and calibration sensors is taught in Ashra, merely claiming the locations of these elements is an obvious matter of engineering design choice, and is not a patentable advance. This is further evidenced in Ashra which teaches the various calibration and detection components may be located in any of a wide variety of locations within the system that will work to track the prop (paragraphs 0036 and 0037), and, further, since Shimaoka also teaches that a calibration assembly may be located in a single housing, or split into a distribution around the projection area (paragraph 0039), simply claiming a suitable location for these elements that would work equally well is a matter of rearrangement of parts, and is not a patentable distinction.
In Reference to Claims 6-8 the modified device of Ashra teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above. Ashra fails to teach the features of claims 6-8. Shimaoka teaches (Claim 6) wherein the one or more processors are configured to establish a common origin point in a show space to align the projector and the tracking sensor (paragraph 0058, any of the dots D1-D11 can be considered a common origin point, and they are used to align the projections); (Claim 7) wherein [a] tracking sensor is configured to detect a position of a prop relative to [a] common origin point, and the one or more processors are configured to instruct the projector to project images onto the prop based on the position of the prop relative to the common origin point (paragraphs 0068, 0069, and 0070, any of the predetermined dot positions D1-D11 can be considered a common origin point, and they are used to calculate the position of an item to correct and project an image onto the item); (Claim 8) wherein the projector is configured to project visible light in a first section at a first time and a second section at a second time after the first time to facilitate the calibration (paragraphs 0051 and 0053). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the projection system of Ashra with the feature of a common origin point in the space along with multiple projections for facilitating calibration as taught by the projection system of Shimaoka for the purpose of more accurately calibrating the system and calculating the location of an object in a space as taught by Shimaoka (paragraph 0070), providing a more accurately projected image on the object, making the system more reliable, and more attractive to the users.
Regarding claim 21, Ashra et al disclose that the prop can be any moving or stationary non-human subject, such as an animal, a robot, a toy, a machine or the like. (paragraph 29) The examiner takes official notice that it is known that a robot has actuators as claimed.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimaoka et al. in view of Ashra (US PGPub. No. 2017/0374333 A1).
In Reference to Claims 12-14 Shimaoka teaches all of claim 9 as discussed above. Shimaoka further teaches (Claim 14) wherein the tracking sensor is configured to track a position of the prop relative to the common origin point, and the one or more processors are configured to instruct the projector to project the images onto the prop based on the position of the prop relative to the common origin point (paragraphs 0068, 0069, and 0070, any of the predetermined dot positions D1-D11 can be considered a common origin point, and they are used to calculate the position of an item to correct and project an image onto the item). Shimaoka fails to teach the features of claims 12 and 13. Ashra teaches (Claim 12) wherein [a] calibration assembly is coupled to a prop (paragraph 0026); (Claim 13) wherein [a] tracking sensor is configured to track a prop (paragraphs 0029 and 0031) and the projector is configured to project images onto the prop as the prop moves through a show space (paragraphs 0042 and 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the video projection system of Shimaoka with the feature of a calibration assembly coupled to a prop, tracking the prop, and projecting onto the prop as it moves as taught by the video projection system of Ashra for the purpose of allowing the system to be used in a wider space with moving objects while still allowing for accurate projection onto the object as taught by Ashra (paragraphs 0042 and 0043), making the system more versatile for a wider range of uses, making the system more attractive to the users.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashra et al. in view of Shimaoka et al. and further in view of Um (US Patent No. 10,402,669 B2).
In Reference to Claims 2 and 3 The modified device of Ashra teaches all of claim 1 as discussed above. Ashra fails to teach the arrangement of claims 2 and 3. Shimaoka teaches (Claim 3) wherein the calibration assembly comprises a housing, and the emitter is positioned [] within the housing (item 50, fig. 2, and paragraph 0039). Um teaches (Claim 2) wherein [a] sensor and [an] emitter are in a concentric ring arrangement (fig. 4, items 110 and 120); (Claim 3) emitters positioned to circumferentially surround [a] sensor (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the optical detection system of Ashra with the feature of the circumferential arrangement as taught by Um for the purpose of more accurately detecting and calculating a position of an item as taught by Um (column 1 line 60 - column 2 line 60), making the system more reliable, and more attractive to the users. Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since all of the elements of a calibration assembly including a sensor and an emitter are taught in Ashra / Shimaoka, as well as the functions of using the sensor and emitter for calibrating the projection of an image, merely claiming an arrangement of these parts that would work equally well which does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable advance.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 8. Shimaoka et al. in view of Ashra et al., and further in view of Um (US Patent No. 10,402,669 B2). In Reference to Claims 10 and 11 Shimaoka teaches all of claim 9 as discussed above. Shimaoka further teaches (Claim 11) wherein the calibration assembly comprises a housing (item 50, fig's 1 and 2), and the emitter is positioned [] within the housing (fig's 1 and 2). Shimaoka fails to teach the arrangement of claims 10 and 11. Um teaches (Claim 10) wherein [a] sensor and [an] emitter are in a concentric ring arrangement (fig. 4, items 110 and 120);
(Claim 11) emitters positioned to circumferentially surround [a] sensor (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the optical detection system of Ashra with the feature of the circumferential arrangement as taught by Um for the purpose of more accurately detecting and calculating a position of an item as taught by Um (column 1 line 60 - column 2 line 60), making the system more reliable, and more attractive to the users. Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since all of the elements of a calibration assembly including a sensor and an emitter are taught in Ashra / Shimaoka, as well as the functions of using the sensor and emitter for calibrating the projection of an image, merely claiming an arrangement of these parts that would work equally well which does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable advance.
Claims 9, 14, 15, 16, 18-20, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimaoka et al. in view of Ashra (US PGPub. No. 2017/0374333 A1). Shimaoka teaches a dynamic projection mapping system, comprising: a projector configured to project light (item 2, fig's 1 and 2); a calibration assembly comprising a sensor configured to detect the light projected by the projector (item 53, fig's 1 and 2) and an emitter configured to emit light (item 51, fig's 1 and 2); a tracking sensor configured to detect the light emitted by the emitter (item 52, fig's 1 and 2; paragraph 0037); and one or more processors configured to establish a common origin within a show space for the projector and the tracking sensor based on sensor signals from the sensor and the tracking sensor (paragraphs 0051, 0053, and 0058-0060). (Claim 15) wherein the emitter is configured to emit infrared light (item 51, fig's 1 and 2), and the tracking sensor is configured to detect the infrared light emitted by the emitter (item 52, fig's 1 and 2).Shimaoka further teaches (Claim 14) wherein the tracking sensor is configured to track a position of the prop relative to the common origin point, and the one or more processors are configured to instruct the projector to project the images onto the prop based on the position of the prop relative to the common origin point (paragraphs 0068, 0069, and 0070, any of the predetermined dot positions D1-D11 can be considered a common origin point, and they are used to calculate the position of an item to correct and project an image onto the item). Shimaoka fails to teach the calibration assembly coupled to a prop and the limitations in claim 13. Ashra teaches wherein [a] calibration assembly is coupled to a prop (paragraph 0026); (Claim 13) wherein [a] tracking sensor is configured to track a prop (paragraphs 0029 and 0031) and the projector is configured to project images onto the prop as the prop moves through a show space (paragraphs 0042 and 0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the video projection system of Shimaoka with the feature of a calibration assembly coupled to a prop, tracking the prop, and projecting onto the prop as it moves as taught by the video projection system of Ashra for the purpose of allowing the system to be used in a wider space with moving objects while still allowing for accurate projection onto the object as taught by Ashra (paragraphs 0042 and 0043), making the system more versatile for a wider range of uses, making the system more attractive to the users.
In Reference to Claims 16 and 18-20 Shimaoka teaches (Claim 16) A method of operating a projection system and an optical tracking system for dynamic projection mapping, the method comprising: instructing, via one or more processors, a projector to project visible light (paragraph 0051); receiving, at the one or more processors, a first sensor signal from a sensor of a calibration assembly, wherein the first sensor signal indicates receipt of the visible light at the sensor (paragraph 0036, and 0043); instructing, via the one or more processors, an emitter of the calibration assembly to emit infrared light (paragraphs 0037 and 0043); receiving, at the one or more processors, a second sensor signal from a tracking sensor, wherein the second sensor signal indicates receipt of the infrared light at the tracking sensor (paragraphs 0037, 0043 and 0058); and calibrating, via the one or more processors, the projector and the tracking sensor based on the first sensor signal and the second sensor signal (paragraphs 0051, 0053, and 0058-0060).
(Claim 18) comprising: receiving, at the one or more processors, additional sensor signals from the tracking sensor; processing, via the one or more processors, the additional sensor signals to determine a position of a prop within a show space; and instructing, via the one or more processors, the projector to project images onto the prop based on the position of the prop within the show space (paragraphs 0068-0070; note "prop" and "show space" are broad, the bun and the surface can be considered a prop and a show space); (Claim 19) comprising calibrating the projector and the tracking sensor by establishing a common origin point in a show space (paragraphs 0053 and 0058-0060, any of points D1 to D11 could be considered a common origin point); (Claim 20) comprising instructing the projector to project the visible light and the emitter to emit the infrared light simultaneously (paragraph 0051, projection device and sensor devices are working in tandem).
Regarding claim 22, Ashra et al disclose that the prop can be any moving or stationary non-human subject, such as an animal, a robot, a toy, a machine or the like. (paragraph 29) The examiner takes official notice that it is known that a robot has actuators as claimed.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimaoka et al. in view of Ashra as applied to claims above and further in view of Um.
In Reference to Claim 17 Shimaoka teaches all of claim 16 as discussed above. Shimaoka further teaches (Claim 17) wherein the sensor and the emitter are [in the same housing] (item 5 / 50, fig's 1 and 2). Shimaoka fails to teach the sensor and emitter being coaxial.
Um teaches a coaxial sensor and emitter (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the optical detection system of Ashra with the feature of the circumferential arrangement as taught by Um for the purpose of more accurately detecting and calculating a position of an item as taught by Um (column 1 line 60 - column 2 line 60), making the system more reliable, and more attractive to the users. Further, the examiner notes that it has been held that rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice where the operation of the device is not modified. See In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). Since all of the elements of a calibration assembly including a sensor and an emitter are taught in Ashra / Shimaoka, as well as the functions of using the sensor and emitter for calibrating the projection of an image, merely claiming an arrangement of these parts that would work equally well which does not modify the operation of the device is not a patentable advance.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Shimaoka fails to disclose limitations regarding independent claims 9 and 16, the examiner disagrees as these limitations are met. The examiner notes that the limitations in claim 9 are “configured to” detect light projected by the projector. The calibration assembly is coupled to a prop in the secondary reference Ashra. The RGB camera 53 of Shimaoka discloses that this element includes an imaging element, such as a CCD image sensor and a CMOS image sensor so that the RGB camera reads on the sensing means which reads on being “configured to” detect the light projected by a camera as claimed.
In response to applicant's argument that the intended purpose of Shimaoka would be destroyed, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the applicant appears to be arguing the specific items that are being detected in the primary reference. The secondary reference Ashra discloses that various objects may be detected including stationary and non-stationary objects and the concept of using known means, such as, calibrating means, light sensing and emitting means would be entirely obvious to allow accurate projection onto an object to make the system more versatile and more accurate as noted in the motivation to combine the references. A POSITA would understand to use known detecting and calibrating means to provide a dynamic and accurate projection mapping system.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE LEE KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-4463. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday 6am-4pm.
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.
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.
/EUGENE L KIM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3711