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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/6/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
As a preliminary housekeeping matter, it is noted that claim 1 is indicated by the status marker as Currently Amended, but no amendments are shown to claim 1, and claim 1 is identical to previously amended claim 1, and no indication is given as to claim amendments in the Response, such that this indicted status of claim 1 is deemed incorrect, and the correct status is Previously Presented. To expedite prosecution per the precepts of compact prosecution, because this mistake is clearly inadvertent and directed to a matter of form, claim 1 will be treated as Previously Presented.
In regard to the single bald assertion proffered by way of argument that there is no motivation to combine Wood with the teachings of Ross, Ross is the primary reference cited for processing images for display; (paragraphs 0016/0021/0026) Wood is the tertiary reference cited for display details in the context of HMD display. Ross discloses processing images for display, and Wood teaches the recited further details of HMD display, which would be natural to apply to one of skill in the art.
It is noted that the reasons for applying Wood to Ross in regard to HMD implementation details set forth in the previous Rejection were not addressed.
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 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 1-4 and 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross (US 2012/0256906) in view of Yoo (US 2011/0109619), in yet further view of Wood (US 5,953,014).
Regarding claim 1, Ross discloses A visual system comprising: (paragraphs 0012, 0013 a graphics rendering system) (a) said visual system including a display suitable for displaying video content thereon; (paragraph 0015 and figure 2 display 2000) (b) said visual system configured for receiving a video stream including a series of two dimensional images, (paragraph 0002 on conjunction with paragraph 0014, video stream of 2D images for display/conversion) where each of said two dimensional images of said series of two dimensional images are serially provided to said display for being displayed thereon in a serial fashion not suitable for being viewed as three dimensional image content; (paragraph 0026, legacy 2D images may be rendered using legacy rendering) (c) said visual system including a processing module that receives said series of two dimensional images of said video stream (paragraph 0015, graphics rendering device receives series of 2D images) and in response provides a left eye image and a right eye image, (paragraph 0016 and figure 1 right and left eye views generated from 2D images) where said left eye image and said right eye image are shifted views of one another suitable for being viewed together as three dimensional image content; (paragraph 0016, right eye and left eye generated by intraocular angle shift for image) (d) said visual system (paragraph 0026, top box 1000 with rendering agent 100) ... displaying (1) said left eve image and said right eve image from said video processing module on said display in such a manner that the video content is observed as said three dimensional content (paragraph 0021/0022, shown Figure 1, left and right views provide 3D view) and (2) said series of two dimensional images of said video stream in said serial fashion not suitable for being viewed as three dimensional image content. (paragraph 0026, legacy 2D images may be rendered using legacy rendering)
While Ross discloses rendering either legacy 2D or converted 3D images on a screen, (paragraph 0026) thus requiring a selection of the output, Ross fails to identically disclose selectively switching between rendering modes.
Similarly, Ross fails to fully disclose (e) said visual system selectively switches between displaying (1) said left eye image and said right eye image from said video processing module on said display in such a manner that the video content is observed as said three dimensional image content where said left eye image and said right eye image are rendered in a spatially overlapping manner observed as a stereoscopic view of said three dimensional image content and (2) said visual system selectively switches between displaying (1) said left eye image and said right eye image from said video processing module on said display in such a manner that the video content is observed as said three dimensional image content where said left eye image and said right eye image are rendered in a spatially non-overlapping manner observed as a stereoscopic view of said three dimensional image content; and (f) wherein said spatially overlapping manner is automatically selected when said display of said visual system is not engaged with a head mounted display; and (g) wherein said non-spatially overlapping manner is automatically selected when said display of said visual system is engaged with a head mounted display.
However, in the same art area of 2D to 3D view generation, Yoo teaches selectively switching rendering modes for display. (paragraphs 0106-0110, shown figure 4, selectively switching between output for rendering)
Yoo also teaches (e) said visual system selectively switches between displaying (1) said left eye image and said right eye image from said video processing module on said display in such a manner that the video content is observed as said three dimensional image content where said left eye image and said right eye image are rendered in a spatially overlapping manner observed as a stereoscopic view of said three dimensional image content (shown Figure 5(d), spatially overlapping right/left images selectively displayed) and (2) said visual system selectively switches between displaying (1) said left eye image and said right eye image from said video processing module on said display in such a manner that the video content is observed as said three dimensional image content where said left eye image and said right eye image are rendered in a spatially non-overlapping manner observed as a stereoscopic view of said three dimensional image content. (shown Figure 5(a), non-overlapping right/left images selectively displayed)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the teaching of Yoo to the disclosure of Ross because Yoo teaches that the techniques it teaches allow for selectively reproducing stereoscopic images for viewer viewing. (paragraph 0007)
Finally, in the context of a HMD per Yoo, (paragraph 0068) Wood teaches (f) wherein said spatially overlapping manner is automatically selected when said display of said visual system is not engaged with a head mounted display; (column 1, lines 20-25, when viewing a LCD screen from a view distance, spatially spliced 3D imaging is used) and (g) wherein said non-spatially overlapping manner is automatically selected when said display of said visual system is engaged with a head mounted display. (column 1, lines 15-20, when using an HMD, right and left images are generated for each eye in close proximity to the eye on the HMD such that right and left eye images are nonoverlapping)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a three dimensional rendition appropriate to a display type before the effective filing date of the instant application because those of skill in the art knew that the type of display implicated the three dimensional rendition on the display well before the effective filing date of the instant application as evinced by Wood. (See column 1, lines 15-25) Still further, MPEP 2144.04III. specifies that the Courts have found mere automation of a manual selection totemic of obviousness such that the recited automatic selection of rendering is obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Ross discloses wherein said display is affixed to a mobile device. (paragraph 0013 cell phones are mobile devices)
Regarding claim 3, Ross discloses wherein said display is interconnected to a non-mobile device. (paragraph 0013 PCs include desktop computers which are regarded as non-mobile)
Regarding claim 4, Ross discloses wherein said video stream is provided to said video system from a remote location. (shown figure 6, remote delivery source 3000)
Regarding claim 6, Ross discloses wherein said left eye image is one of a plurality of left eye images based upon a viewer's location and said right eye image is one of a plurality of right eye images based upon said viewer's location. (paragraph 0014 right and left views based on viewers perspective which in turn is necessarily based on viewers location)
Regarding claim 7, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said left eye image and said right eye image are separated by an optical separator. (paragraph 0068 parallax barrier disclosed)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said optical separator is a parallax barrier lens. (paragraph 0068 parallax barrier disclosed)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said optical separator is a lenticular lens. (paragraph 0068 lenticular display disclosed)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein a perceived depth between said right eye image and said left eye image is adjustable. (paragraph 0114 depth user adjustable)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said depth is user adjustable. (paragraph 0114 depth user adjustable)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said depth is automatically adjusted by said system based upon content of said right eye image and said left eye image. (paragraph 0116 formatter may adjust depth based on a 3D effect of the content)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said left eye image and said right eye image are rendered on said display in a side by side manner. (shown figure 5a)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said spatially overlapping manner is an auto-stereoscopic multi-view manner. (shown figure 5d, also paragraph 0068)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said spatially non-overlapping manner is a side by side manner. (shown figure 5a)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said selectively switching is based upon a user input. (paragraph 0111 user selects format)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17, Ross is silent in regard to the recited; however, Yoo teaches wherein said selectively switching is based upon an environment of said display. (paragraph 0103 output may be switched based on a display environment)
Same rationale for combing and motivation as for claim 1 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Raymond (US 2013/0187910) may be considered for overlapping stereoscopic viewing.
Chen (US 2011/0304618) may be considered for disparity aspects.
Kleinberger (US 2001/0013971) implicates stereoscopic viewing.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/ Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
March 4, 2026