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 Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: ‘at least one external projection’ in line 7 should be ‘at least one external projector’. Examiner believes this is more consistent with the rest of the claims and especially claim 13 which is similar to claim 6 in language. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 5, 8, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien et al. (US 2022/0303512 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Chien teaches a user interface (paragraph 0030, remote control),
An image emitter (element 112 of 110 and element 122 of 120, figure 1);
A communicator (inherent to the use of a remote control, there has to be something to receive signals from the remote control or it couldn’t function); and
At least one processor (111, 121, figure 1) operatively connected with the user interface, the image emitter and the communicator;
Wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
Generate a first edge blending screen and control the image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen (133 is the blending area, 1131 and 1231 are the non-overlap areas, figure 1)
Based on receiving a request to output a graphic user interface (310, figure 3, paragraph 0030) while the image emitter outputs the first edge blending screen, update a layout of the first edge blending screen (P51-P54 move around the screen to delineate the outline of the non-overlap [5131 and 5231] and the overlap regions [533], figures 5A-5B) wherein the updated layout comprises a first display area comprising the GUI (310, 320 paragraph 0030, see figure 7 wherein the Gui is displayed in the non-0overlap region) and a second display area comprising a first blending image (633 which corresponds to overlap region, paragraph 0039), and wherein the first display area does not overlap the second display area (see 6131 and 633, figure 7), and
Control the image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen including the updated layout (paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 16, Chien teaches a plurality of projectors (110, 120, figure 1) comprising a primary projector (110) and a secondary projector (120), wherein the primary projector comprises a first user interface (paragraph 0030, remote control), a first image emitter (112, figure 1), a first communicator (inherent to the remote controller without which it could not relay signals to the projector), and at least one first processor (111, figure 1),
Wherein the secondary projector comprises a second user interface (paragraph 0030, remote control), a second image emitter (122, figure 1), a second communicator (likewise inherent to the second projector or the remote control couldn’t communicate with the projector) and at least one second processor (121, figure 1),
Wherein the at least one first processor is configured to generate a first edge blending screen and control he first image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen (paragraph 0027),
Wherein the at least one second processor is configured to generate a second edge blending screen and control the second image emitter to output a projection image of the second edge blending screen, and
Wherein the at least one first processor is further configured to cause a predetermined area of the first edge blending screen to overlap the second edge blending screen near at least one edge of the first edge blending screen (133, figure 1).
Regarding claim 5 and 12, Chien teaches receiving the request to output the Gui comprises receiving, through the user interface, a request to adjust a setting of the projector (314, figure 7).
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) 2-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien et al. (US 2022/0303512 A1) in view of Oike (US 2019/0124307 A1).
Regarding claim 2, and claims 9 and 14, Chien does not specify that the at least one processor is further configured to control the communicator to transmit information about the updated layout to at least one external projector; and
Wherein the information about the updated layout comprises information about a position or size of a third display area corresponding to a projection image output by the at least one external projector.
Oike teaches at least one processor is configured to control the communicator to transmit information about the updated layout to at least one external projector (whenever the projectors of Chien are manually adjusted via the selection points to delineate the overlap and non-overlap areas, each projector adjustment would need to repeat figure 6 of Oike based on any layout adjustments or resets, see at least step s9 wherein the second pattern image would be transmitted from the primary to the secondary projector); and
Wherein the information about the updated layout comprises information about a position or a size of a third display area corresponding to a projection image output by the at least one external projector (paragraph 0120, the size of the third display area would have to be implicit in the image to be projected from the external projector).
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 Chien to use the blending method of Oike in order to make the overlap more seamless.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 10-11, Chien teaches adjusting the first display area and the second display area based on the update request information (performing another iteration of the method of Chien would produce ‘adjusting the first display area and the second display area based on the update request information, upon modification with Oike) , and control the image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen including the adjusted first display area and the adjusted second display area (S230, S240, figure 2).
Oike teaches receiving, from at least one external projector through the communicator, update request information comprising a request to update the layout of the first edge blending screen (the slave projector could be considered the first projector and the external projector could be considered the master projector of Oike in claims 3 and 4, so any requests for updating the overlap delineation of Chien would be transmitted via the ‘external’ master projector to the slave projector, and whenever the projectors of Chien are manually adjusted via the selection points to delineate the overlap and non-overlap areas, and each projector adjustment would need to repeat figure 6 of Oike based on any layout adjustments or resets).
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 Chien to use the blending method of Oike in order to make the overlap more seamless.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Chien teaches based on receiving, through the user interface, a request to terminate the output of the GUI, restore the updated layout to the pre-updated layout (‘Reset’ button figure 7), and
Control the image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen including the pre-update layout (a reset button would reset the settings).
Chien does not teach controlling the communicator to transmit to at least one external projection a request to display a second edge blending screen including the pre-update layout.
Oike teaches controlling the communicator to transmit to at least one external projector a request to display a second edge blending screen (whenever the projectors of Chien are manually adjusted via the selection points to delineate the overlap and non-overlap areas, or reset, each projector adjustment would need to repeat figure 6 of Oike based on any layout adjustments or resets, so the master projector of Chien in view of Oike would without any undue experimentation ask the slave projector to reset the second edge blending screen).
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 Chien to use the blending method of Oike in order to make the overlap more seamless.
Regarding claims 7 and 15, Chien teaches the at least one processor is further configured to cause a predetermined area of the second display area to overlap the third display area near at least one edge of the first edge blending screen (133, figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, Chien teaches based on receiving a request to output a graphical user interface while the first image emitter outputs the first edge blending screen, update a layout of the first edge blending screen, wherein the updated layout comprises a first display area comprising the GUI (310, 320, figure 7) and a second display area (633, figure 7) comprising a first blending image, and wherein the first display area does not overlap with the second display area, and
Control the first image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen including the updated layout (320, figure 7);
Wherein the at least one second processor is further configured to; update a layout of the second edge blending screen, wherein the updated layout of the second edge blending screen comprises a third display area (123, figure 1) comprising a second blending image (133, figure 1) and a fourth display area (1231, figure 1), and wherein the third display area does not overlap with the fourth display area (1231 and 133 don’t overlap).
Chien does not specify control the first communicator to transmit information about the updated layout to the secondary projector; based on receiving the information about the updated layout, update a layout of the second edge blending screen, and
Adjust the third display area based on the information about the updated layout.
Oike teaches control the first communicator to transmit information about the updated layout to the secondary projector (whenever the projectors of Chien are manually adjusted via the selection points to delineate the overlap and non-overlap areas, each projector adjustment would need to repeat figure 6 of Oike based on any layout adjustments or resets, see at least step s9 wherein the second pattern image would be transmitted from the primary to the secondary projector), based on receiving the information about the updated layout, update a layout of the second edge blending screen (S9, figure 6), and
Adjust the third display area based on information about the updated layout (S22, figure 6).
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 Chien to use the blending method of Oike in order to make the overlap more seamless.
Regarding claims 18-19, Chien teaches adjusting the first display area and the second display area based on the update request information (performing another iteration of the method of Chien would produce ‘adjusting the first display area and the second display area based on the update request information, upon modification with Oike) , and control the image emitter to output a projection image of the first edge blending screen including the adjusted first display area and the adjusted second display area (S230, S240, figure 2).
Oike teaches receiving, from at least one external projector through the communicator, update request information comprising a request to update the layout of the first edge blending screen (the slave projector could be considered the first projector and the external projector could be considered the master projector of Oike in claims 18 and 19, so any requests for updating the overlap delineation of Chien would be transmitted via the ‘external’ master projector to the slave projector, and whenever the projectors of Chien are manually adjusted via the selection points to delineate the overlap and non-overlap areas, and each projector adjustment would need to repeat figure 6 of Oike based on any layout adjustments or resets).
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 Chien to use the blending method of Oike in order to make the overlap more seamless.
Regarding claim 20, Chien teaches the at least one first processor is configured to cause a predetermined area of the second display area to overlap the third display area near the at least one edge of the first edge blending screen (133, figure 1).
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 2/05/2026