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 and amendments received July 20, 2026 have been fully considered. Applicant arguments with regard to 35 U.S.C. § 101 the examiner stands with the rejection. In response to applicant argument, the examiner is forced to interpret the claim limitations as broadly and as reasonably possible, in determining patentability of the disclosed invention. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir.1993).
The claims do recite a mental process since the claimed invention steps falls under that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions (constructing or drawing in a human mental processes with a help of paper and pen or related materials to process holographic image). A low visibility 2D display can be convert to holographic content display in a mental process with a help of paper, pen, pencil and other material to get acceptable visibility. The claims consider "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis", as such, the examiner stands with the rejection. Further, the courts have recognized a computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Applicant argument regarding to claims 16-20 a computer program product claimed, based paragraph 0018 applicant specification, the claims in light of the specification are under review, no applicant response required. Applicant argument with regard to 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejection, Applicant argues that the cited prior art does not disclose “see applicant argument pages 12-14”.
As such, these have been considered but they are not persuasive as addressed below. See the rejection how the art on record reads on the claimed invention as well as the examiner's interpretation of the cited art in view of the presented claim set as outlined below. Furthermore, in addition to § 101 rejection as outlined above, at least with respect to FIG. 11B, it can be seen that compressive ToF 3D imaging increases the spatial resolution of LR commercial ToF sensors FIG. As shown at the top of 11B, a conventional ToF sensor is too low resolution to capture fine details in the scene. The insets of FIG. 11B show that much higher resolution detail in the 3D depth map can be recovered in the plastic toy plant and resolution target using the proposed compressive super resolution hardware and software. The system of Cossairt includes interaction between user and a computer vision with processing low resolution into higher resolution for a better visibility as outlined at least in Fig. 11. As such, consider a broader claimed invention, the examiner stands with the rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 recites “detecting, determining and generating”. These claimed steps are collecting and analyzing information which are similar to the concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas, such as collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Elec. Power Grp., LLL v. Alstom S.A, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The claim does not include significant element that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8 also does not add any additional elements, as such the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites series of steps of “detecting, determining and generating” related to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites detecting, determining and generating... The limitation of detecting, determining and generating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processors, computer-storage media” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “by a processors, computer-storage media” language, “detecting, determining and generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the detecting low visibility 2D, in response, determining holographic content display characteristics generated from 2D and generating based on determining….. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processors, computer-storage media to perform both the detecting, determining and generating steps. The “a processors, computer-storage media” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “a processors, computer-storage media” performing a generic computer function of detecting, determining and generating based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processors, computer-storage media” to perform both the generating and ranking steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 10-15 also does not add any additional elements, as such the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites series of steps of “detecting, determining and generating” related to concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The claim recites detecting, determining and generating... The limitation of detecting, determining and generating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a processors, computer-storage media” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
For example, but for the “by a processors, computer-storage media” language, “detecting, determining and generating” in the context of this claim encompasses the user thinking that the detecting low visibility 2D, in response, determining holographic content display characteristics generated from 2D and generating based on determining….. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – using a processors, computer-storage media to perform both the detecting, determining and generating steps. The “a processors, computer-storage media” in both steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic “a processors, computer-storage media” performing a generic computer function of detecting, determining and generating based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using “a processors, computer-storage media” to perform both the generating and ranking steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 17-20 also does not add any additional elements, as such the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 16-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Computer program product claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cossairt US 2021/0389724.
In regarding to claim 1 Cossairt teaches:
1. A method comprising: detecting low visibility of a 2-dimensional (2D) display with respect to a user;
Cossairt, 0033, 0037, 0068
determining, in response to detecting the low visibility, holographic content display characteristics of holographic content to be generated from the 2D display;
Cossairt, 0037, 0051, 0068
and generating, based on the determined holographic content display characteristics, holographic content via a holographic display of the 2D digital display.
Cossairt, 0037, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 2 Cossairt teaches:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting low visibility of the 2D display with respect to the user includes: determining that an obstruction is blocking view of the 2D display with respect to the user based on collected sensor data.
Cossairt, 0037, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 3 Cossairt teaches:
3. The method of claim 2, wherein determining holographic content display characteristics of holographic content to be generated from the 2D display includes: determining a distance that the holographic content will be projected from the holographic display based on a location of the obstruction.
Cossairt, 0037, 0041, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 4 Cossairt teaches:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting low visibility of the 2D display with respect to the user includes: determining that a viewing angle of the user with respect to the 2D display is within a viewing angle range based on collected sensor data.
Cossairt, 0047, 0053, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 5 Cossairt teaches:
5. The method of claim 4, wherein determining holographic content display characteristics of holographic content to be generated from the 2D display includes: determining an orientation of the holographic content to be generated based on the viewing angle of the user with respect to the 2D display.
Cossairt, 0047, 0053, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 6 Cossairt teaches:
6. The method of claim 1, wherein detecting low visibility of the 2D display with respect to the user includes: determining that a level of visibility in an environment of the 2D display is within a level of visibility range.
Cossairt, 0037, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 7 Cossairt teaches:
7. The method of claim 6, wherein determining holographic content display characteristics of holographic content to be generated from the 2D display includes: determining light physics properties of the holographic content to be generated based on the determined level of visibility in the environment of the 2D display.
Cossairt, 0037, 0051, 0068
In regarding to claim 8 Cossairt teaches:
8. The method of claim 1, wherein holographic content display characteristics include at least one selected from a group consisting of: holographic content light intensity, holographic content position, holographic content orientation, holographic content color, and holographic content size.
Cossairt, 0077-0078
Claims 9-15 list all similar elements of claims 1-7, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-7 applies equally as well to claims 9-15. Furthermore, Cossairt teaches a system.
Cossairt, 0054 and Fig.5.
Claim 16 list all similar elements of claim 1, but in program form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 16.
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 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cossairt US 2021/0389724 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hardee et al. US 2019/0080097.
In regarding to claim 17 Cossairt teaches:
17. The computer program product of claim 16, however, Cossairt fails to explicitly teach, but Hardee teaches wherein detecting low visibility of the 2D display with respect to the user includes: determining that environmental light in a vicinity of the 2D display is within a particular environmental light value range based on collected sensor data.
Hardee, 0017, 0063, 0069
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hardee with the system of Cossairt in order wherein detecting low visibility of the 2D display with respect to the user includes: determining that environmental light in a vicinity of the 2D display is within a particular environmental light value range based on collected sensor data, as such, preventing unauthorized viewers from seeing the content…---003.
Note: The motivation that was applied to claim 17 above, applies equally as well to claims 18-20 as presented blow.
In regarding to claim 18 Cossairt and Hardee teaches:
18. The computer program product of claim 17, furthermore, Hardee teaches: wherein determining holographic content display characteristics of holographic content to be generated from the 2D display includes: determining light intensity of the holographic content that will be projected from the holographic display based on the determined environmental light.
Hardee, 0061, 0081
In regarding to claim 19 Cossairt teaches:
19. The computer program product of claim 16, furthermore, Hardee teaches wherein detecting low visibility of the 2D display with respect to the user includes: determining that a distance between the user and the 2D display exceeds a threshold distance based on collected sensor data.
Hardee, 0017, 0063, 0069
In regarding to claim 20 Cossairt teaches:
20. The computer program product of claim 19, furthermore, Hardee teaches wherein determining holographic content display characteristics of holographic content to be generated from the 2D display includes: determining a size of the holographic content that will be projected from the holographic display based on the determination that the distance between the user and the 2D display exceeds the threshold distance.
Hardee, 0017, 0063, 0069
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL T TEKLE whose telephone number is (571)270-1117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:30 ET.
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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/DANIEL T TEKLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights