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) 1-8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (JP 2008-268624A) in view of Uemura et al. (US 2019/0394435 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ozawa teaches a memory (paragraph 0020);
A projection part (1, figures 1 and 2, 10, figure 2) configured to output an image onto a projection surface (SC, figures 1 and 2), and
At least one processor (paragraph 0020) configured to:
Obtain a first image including content (Gi, paragraph 0023),
Obtain inclination information of the electronic apparatus (paragraph 0021, the trapezoidal distortion information corresponds to the inclination information),
Identify a first area (paragraph 0032) in which the first image (Gi) is displayed and a second area (Gn, paragraph 0032) in which the first image is not displayed based on the inclination information,
Change a size of the first image based on the size of the first area (paragraph 0032),
Control the projection part to output the first image having the changed size onto the first area (paragraph 0032), and
Control he projection part to output, onto the second area (Gn) a second image (Gt, paragraph 0046, figure 6b and 7b) including additional information (paragraph 0045, date and time) based on the inclination information and a size of the second area (paragraph 0046 and 0043).
Ozawa does not specify a sensor for obtaining inclination information.
Uemura teaches a sensor (130, figure 1) for obtaining inclination information (paragraph 0030).
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 Ozawa to use the camera of Uemura in order to automate the keystone correction and make it more accurate.
Regarding claim 2 and 12, Ozawa teaches rotating the first image based on the inclination information (paragraph 0032), adjusting the first image by changing a width and a height of the first image based on a width and a height of the first area (paragraph 0032),
Control the projection part to output the adjusted first image corresponding to the first area (figure 4, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Ozawa teaches rotating the second image based on the inclination information (paragraph 0043), and adjusting the second image by changing a size of the second image based on the size of the second area (implicit given that Gn changes in size relative to Gi), and control the projection part to output the adjusted second image corresponding to the second area (paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 4 and 14, Ozawa teaches the at least one processor is further configured to adjust the first image and the second image by rotating the first image and the second image in a reverse direction of the inclination direction (paragraph 0024 and 0043), wherein
The inclination direction is a clockwise or counterclockwise direction based on a direction that the projection surface faces (clockwise and counterclockwise are not specified with respect to anything, therefore vertical keystoning is sufficient to teach this limitation, however examiner notes that horizontal keystone is well known and correcting for horizontal keystone would likewise have been obvious).
Regarding claim 5 and 15, Ozawa does not specify the use of a sensor for obtaining keystone information.
Uemura teaches a sensor (130, figure 1) which is an image sensor (paragraph 0029) for obtaining inclination information (paragraph 0030).
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 Ozawa to use the camera of Uemura in order to automate the keystone correction and make it more accurate.
Regarding claim 6, Ozawa further teaches the at least one processor is configured to, based on a plurality of second areas (Gt can arbitrarily be divided into top and sides) obtain a size of the plurality of second areas (12t, 12n, Hi Hg, figure 7) and control the projection part to output the second image in the second area having a largest size among the plurality of second areas (figure 7, the top of the trapezoid will always have the largest area since it is the long side of the aspect ratio in a landscape projection which Ozawa clearly is).
Regarding claim 7,, Ozawa teaches identifying an output area in which an image is output through the projection part, identify the first area to which the adjusted first image is output and identify as the second area an area excluding the first area from among the output area (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 8, Ozawa teaches the at least one processor is configured to control the projection part to output a background color of the second area as a predetermined color (paragraph 0032, the background is black).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (JP 2008-268624A) in view of Uemura et al. (US 2019/0394435 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Michi (US 2018/0220112 A1).
Uemura further teaches the image sensor is a camera (paragraph 0029).
Regarding claim 9, Ozawa in view of Uemura does not teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a color of the projection surface based on the image captured through the image sensor, and identify the predetermined color based on the identified color of the projection surface.
Michi teaches the sensor comprises an image sensor (20, paragraph 0041) for capturing an image, and wherein the at least one processor is configured to: identify a color of the projection surface based on the image captured through the image sensor (paragraph 0041), and identify the predetermined color based on the identified color of the projection surface (Michi adjust the color of the image based on the surface, which would include the background image when applied to Ozawa, furthermore making the background color another color than black is well known in the art and could be done according to user preference.
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 Ozawa in view of Uemura to use the color correction of Michi in order to improve the image quality of the projector on diverse projection surfaces.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ozawa (JP 2008-268624A) in view of Uemura et al. (US 2019/0394435 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori (US 2016/0094821 A1)
Regarding claim 10, Ozawa in view of Uemura does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to control the projection part to output the inclination information and a guide user interface to rotate the second image.
Mori teaches the processor is configured to output inclination information and a guide user interface to rotate the image (paragraph 0074 and figure 7C).
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 Ozawa in view of Uemura to use the keystone adjustment GUI as taught in Mori in order to make the projection system more convenient for the user.
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 1/23/2026