Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/188,075

REMOTE PROJECTOR ALIGNMENT SYSTEM FOR SPHERICAL PROJECTION SYSTEM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 22, 2023
Examiner
HOWARD, RYAN D
Art Unit
2882
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
794 granted / 997 resolved
+11.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+10.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
39 currently pending
Career history
1036
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§112
11.8%
-28.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 997 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman, III et al. (US 20180268784 A1) in view of Raskar et al. (US 6,709,116 B1) and further in view of Racz et al. (US 2019/0020658 A1). Regarding claim 1, Chapman teaches projectors (202, figure 7 and 108, figure 2) operative to project images onto a surface of a screen, a computer processor (104B, figure 3) coupled with a database (306, figure 3), operative to obtain video content (paragraph 0075) and transmit the video content to the projectors as well as to manipulate the projectors (via 208, figure 2), a remote alignment system comprising: A camera (106, figure 1, 202, figure 7) collocated with each of the projectors and configured provide a live feed view of the surface of the screen (paragraph 0063), the camera electronically connected to the projector system by way of the computer processor via a wired internet connection (paragraph 0043); and A client computer device (102-C, figure 6) running remote alignment software operative to display a graphical user interface (on 302-C, figure 6) that enables remote viewing of the projected images (paragraph 0063), manipulation of the camera (210, figure 1, paragraph 0111) and manipulation (208, figure 2) of the projectors to enable remote alignment of the projector system (figure 15, paragraph 0118 and 0124). Chapman does not specify the projection surface is a spherical screen nor that the wired internet connection for the camera is a power over the ethernet connection injector cable. Raskar teaches projection onto a spherical surface (column 12 line 33-41). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Chapman to project on a hemispherical or dome surface such as taught in Raskar in order to extend the marketability of the projector system to further projection environments. Chapman in view of Raskar does not teach the wired internet connection for the camera via a powered over the ethernet connection injector cable. Racz teaches cameras connected to computer systems using powered over the ethernet connection injector cables (paragraph 0117). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the wired connection of Chapman in view of Raskar to use a PoE cable in order to eliminate a power cable for the camera. Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman, III et al. (US 20180268784 A1) in view of Raskar et al. (US 6,709,116 B1). Regarding claims 2 and 3, Chapman teaches a computer implemented method of remotely aligning a projector system (figure 7), comprising: Viewing a screen remotely (on 302-C, figure 6) via a first live video camera (106-C, figure 6) feed through remote access software;, Manipulating a first projector (108-C, figure 6) remotely (paragraph 0115 and 0124) via a remote alignment software interface to adjust an image characteristic selected form the group of orientation (paragraph 0124), Viewing the screen remotely iteratively (figure 7) via other live video camera feeds through the remote access software; and Manipulating (paragraph 0124) other projectors remotely iteratively via the remote alignment software interface to adjust the other projector image characteristics selected from the group of orientation (paragraph 0124) until alignment of the projector system is achieved (figures 14 and 15). Chapman does not teach that the screen is a spherical surface. Raskar teaches projection onto a spherical surface (column 12 line 33-41). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the display of Chapman to project on a hemispherical or dome surface such as taught in Raskar in order to extend the marketability of the projector system to further projection environments. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D HOWARD whose telephone number is (571)270-5358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5:00. 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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at 5712722303. 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. /RYAN D HOWARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882 10/02/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 22, 2023
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12587621
LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE AND IMAGE PROJECTION DEVICE HAVING A LIGHT SOURCE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12587620
CONTROL METHOD, CONTROL DEVICE, AND NON-TRANSITORY COMPUTER-READABLE STORAGE MEDIUM STORING CONTROL PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12565330
AIRCRAFT BIRD STRIKE REDUCTION DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12548980
Single Element Dot Pattern Projector
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547009
EFFICIENT USER-DEFINED SDR-TO-HDR CONVERSION WITH MODEL TEMPLATES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+10.3%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 997 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month