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 .
Status
The filing on 12/26/2025 amended claims 1 and 5. Claims 1 and 5 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1 and 5.
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “a second projection image projected by the second projector” on line 6 of claim 1 and “the first display device” on line 16 of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “the first display device” on line 20 of claim 5. There are insufficient antecedent bases for “the second projector” in claim 1 and “the first display device” in the claim 1 and 5.
Furthermore, claims 1 and 5 also recite “second display device… projects a second projection image” and “a second projection image projected by the second projector.” The above claim language fails to clearly point out whether the “second projection image” displayed/projected by the second projector and/or the second display device is the same.
For the purpose of examination claim 1 (and, similarly, claim 5) is interpreted as following:
1. An adjustment method comprising:
displaying, by a display device, an auxiliary image used to help an input operation for performing a geometric distortion adjustment of a second display device, wherein the second display device projects a projection image including superimposing a first projection image projected by a first projector and a second projection image projected by a second projector;
displaying, by the second display device, the auxiliary image based on the input operation;
displaying, by the second display device, a second image in which a result of the adjustment is reflected;
outputting an adjustment parameter used to perform the adjustment to the second display device based on the input operation; and
wherein the auxiliary image and the second image projected by the second display device includes superimposing the auxiliary image on a position shifted from a selected adjustment point in the second image; and
further comprising displaying, by the display device and the second display device, a third image of giving notice of an error when an error occurs due to the input operation.
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.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manual (the Manual of Geometry Manager Pro Ver. 2.1, i.e., GMPv2.1) in view of Urano (US 20190191134 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, the Manual teaches an adjustment method and an adjustment device having at least one processor executing the method comprising: displaying, by a display device (computer screen), an auxiliary image (window of GMPv2.1) used to help an input operation (user input to GMPv2.1) for performing a geometric distortion adjustment (free-form, 4-corner, keystone, cylindrical screen, elliptical screen, spherical screen, S-shape screen corrections; p. 35) of a second display device, wherein the second display device is a projector (projector) which projects a projection image; displaying, by the second display device (projector), the auxiliary image (window of GMPv2.1) based on the input operation (user input to GMPv2.1); displaying, by the second display device (projector), a second image (desktop) in which a result of the adjustment is reflected (after the projector is connected to the computer and correction/s performed; p. 16-17); outputting an adjustment parameter (correction parameter) used to perform the adjustment to the second display device (projector) based on the input operation (user input to GMPv2.1); and wherein the auxiliary image (window of GMPv2.1) and the second image (desktop) projected by the second display device (projector) includes superimposing the auxiliary image (window of GMPv2.1) on a position shifted from a selected adjustment point in the second image (desktop) and further comprising displaying, by the display device and the second display device, a third image of giving notice of an error when an error occurs due to the input operation (p. 35).
The Manual teaches blending two or more images from two or more projectors but does not explicitly teach the projection image including superimposing a first projection image projected by a first projector and a second projection image projected by a second projector.
Urano teaches superimposing two or more images from two or more projectors (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine the Manual with Urano; because it improves image quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5 have been considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejections of all pending claims are maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, applicant/s argue,
While Manual teaches various corrections, such as keystone, it does not have a geometric distortion adjustment. Also, there is no error notification via display of a third image, as called for by amended claim 1.
The Manual, page 35, does indicate that when a “setting exceeding the geometric distortion limit is sent to the projector… that in such cases the projected images may lose their shape.” Urano doesn't cure such deficiencies, and generally only refers to geometric correction as a correction process for correcting at least one of keystone distortion, barrel distortion, and pincushion distortion. See, for example, Urano, Paragraph [0191]. Therefore, independent claim 1 distinguishes over the art. (Remarks; p. 5).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Various free-form, 4-corner, keystone, cylindrical screen, elliptical screen, spherical screen, S-shape screen corrections are geometric distortion adjustment. Furthermore, error notification is explicitly taught in p. 35 of the Manual.
Conclusion
The prior art references cited in PTO-892 are made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. 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.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882