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 05/07/2026 amended claims 1 and 5. Claims 1 and 5 are pending and rejected.
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 device comprising: a first projector (selected projector 2 from projector list) for projecting a first projection image (projected image. p. 28); a second projector (selected projector 1 from projector list) for projecting a second projection image (projected image, p. 28); at least one processor configured to execute displaying, using a first display device (computer), an auxiliary image (grid/test pattern/cursor in the Editing area 6; p. 34) used to help an input operation for performing a geometric distortion adjustment of a second display device (selected projector 1), wherein the second display device (selected projector 1) is the second projector (selected projector 1) that projects the second projection image (projected image, p. 26, 28), displaying, using the second projector (selected projector 1) onto a physical projection surface (projection screen), the auxiliary image (grid/test pattern/cursor) based on the input operation (p. 26-28), displaying, using the second projector (selected projector 1) onto the physical projection surface (projection screen), a second image in which a result of the adjustment is reflected (p. 28, 32-34), and outputting an adjustment parameter used to perform the adjustment to the second projector (selected projector 1) based on the input operation (p. 28, 32-34); and wherein displaying the auxiliary image (grid/test pattern/cursor) and the second image by the second projector (selected projector 1) includes superimposing the auxiliary image (grid/test pattern/cursor) over the second image on a position shifted from a selected adjustment point in the second image such that the selected adjustment point is not covered by the auxiliary image (grid/test pattern/cursor) on the physical projection surface (projection screen); and further comprising displaying, by the first display device (computer) and the second projector (selected projector 1), a third image of giving notice of an error when an error occurs due to the input operation (Alert Distortion; p. 35).
The Manual teaches blending two or more images from two or more projectors but does not explicitly teach second projector projects the second projection image that is superimposed with the first projection image projected by the first 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 fully considered but are found not persuasive; hence the rejection/s of claims 1 and 5 are maintained.
Regarding claims 1 and 5, applicant/s argue,
The subject Office Action (Page 4) equates the claimed "auxiliary image" with the Manual's GMPv2.1 UI (user interface) window. However, the Manual explicitly displays its control window exclusively on the computer screen (the first display device), which is different from the claimed structure. The projector in Manual does not project the UI menu itself onto a physical projection surface. The Manual prevents the UI from covering the adjustment point by utilizing a physically separate display device (the PC monitor).
Affirmatively claiming that the auxiliary image is projected onto a physical projection surface and superimposed over the second image recites specific hardware architecture not provided by the Manual. (Remarks. p. 5-6).
The amendment/s of claims 1 and 5 prompt a new interpretation of the “auxiliary image.” The “auxiliary image” is now interpreted as the image of the grid/test pattern/cursor.
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 extension fee 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 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
Prosecution Insights