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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7, 9-12, 14-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Eder et al (US Pub US 2020/0236330 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Eder et al teaches a display apparatus (400 in Fig. 11) comprising: a display panel; a plurality of reflectors forming an inverted pyramid on a front surface of the display panel (See Paragraph [0032] To address this, one may consider placing a respective panel facing each edge, with a respective version of the source image of the ghost included on the display, to great four versions of the ghost illusion. To provide equal space on the display for each source image, the panels would ideally converge on the center of the display, and hence form an inverted pyramid.”),
wherein the plurality of reflectors are configured to reflect an image output from the display panel (Figs. 6-8); a sensor (432, 436 in Fig. 11, Paragraph 0096);
at least one memory storing at least one instruction (412 in Fig. 11); and at least one processor (410 in Fig. 11) configured to execute the at least one instruction to wherein the at least one instruction ( See Paragraph [0136] “… a display system (400) (such as for example a TV, laptop, tablet, phone, smartwatch, home assistant or other suitable device), for use in a Pepper's Ghost illusion, comprises a light emissive display (418); a sensor (432, 436) operable to detect the position of an attachment member (200) of a cone (100), relative to the light emissive display; and a positioning processor (such as CPU 410 operating under suitable software instruction) arranged to position images, which have been distorted by an inverse of the distortion caused by the reflection of the cone, responsive to the detected position of the cone relative to the light emissive display.”),
when executed by the at least one processor, causes the display apparatus to: identify an object from an input image, acquire an output image comprising a plurality of objects based on the plurality of reflectors, control the display panel to display the output image, and based on identifying a user through the sensor, update the output image and control the display panel to display the updated output image (See Figures 1, 3-9, 11; Paragraph 0108, 0134, 0136).
Regarding Claims 4, 18, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the display apparatus to: based on identifying that a gaze of the identified user is directed toward the display apparatus, update the output image based on a direction corresponding to a location of the identified user. (See Paragraph 0030-0036).
Regarding Claims 5, 19, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor, further causes the display apparatus to: update the output image by changing at least one of a size and a resolution of the plurality of objects based on a distance between the identified user and the display apparatus. (See Paragraph 0106-0110).
Regarding Claim 7, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor further causes the display apparatus to: based on identifying a gesture of the identified user through the sensor, update the output image by changing the location of an object corresponding to a location of the identified user, among the plurality of objects, based on a direction of the gesture. (See Paragraph 0110-0116, 0121-0124).
Regarding Claim 9, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor further causes the display apparatus to: identify a hand of the identified user through the sensor, and update the output image by rotating an object corresponding to a location of the identified user, among the plurality of objects, based on a rotational direction of the hand of the identified user. (See Paragraph 0110-0116, 0121-0124).
Regarding Claim 10, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor further causes the display apparatus to: identify an ambient luminance in a vicinity of the display apparatus through the sensor, and update the output image by changing a luminance of the plurality of objects based on the identified ambient luminance. (See Paragraph 0030-0036).
Regarding Claim 11, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor further causes the display apparatus to: based on identifying a plurality of objects in the input image, identify an object among the plurality of objects identified in the input image based on a size of each object of the plurality of objects identified in the input image. (See Paragraph 0106-0110).
Regarding Claim 12, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor further causes the display apparatus to: based on identifying a plurality of objects in the input image, acquire an output image comprising a plurality of images corresponding to the plurality of reflectors, wherein each image of the plurality of images comprises the plurality of objects identified in the input image, and control the display panel to display the output image. (See Paragraph 0030-0036).
Regarding Claim 14, Eder et al teaches the display apparatus wherein the at least one instruction, when executed by the at least one processor further causes the display apparatus to: scale the plurality of objects based on an angle formed by the plurality of reflectors and the display panel. (See Paragraph 0025, 0034-0036, 0043-0045).
Regarding Claim 15, the method Claim 15 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 20, the CRM Claim 20 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0135).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6, 8, 13, 16-17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624