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) 1-2, 6, 10-11, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (US 2013/0314388 A1) in view of Urano et al. (US 2019/0191134 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Oda teaches transmitting signals (paragraph 0152) to at least one edge node (541a, figure 26) by at least one center node (511, figure 26);
Acquiring (S703, figure 28) a projection image of a test pattern image (S702, figure 28) by the edge node;
Performing image processing on the acquired projection image (S704, figure 28) by the edge node (541a, figure 28) to get a calibration parameter data (paragraph 0148);
Transmitting the calibration parameter data (S705, figure 28) to the center node (511, figure 28) by the edge node (541a); and
Outputting a calibration result to at least one projector (S706, S707, S708, figure 28) by the center node based on the calibration parameter data.
Oda does not specify that the center node transmits a calibration command to the edge node.
Urano teaches a center node (PC 200, paragraph 0037) transmits a calibration command (paragraph 0037) to the edge node (image capture apparatus 400, paragraph 0037).
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 system of Oda to use the central node capture command of Urano in order to make the processing system more streamlined and convenient for the user.
Regarding claim 2, Oda teaches controlling the projector to project the test pattern image by the center node (S701 originates with PC511 the center node); and
Projecting the test pattern image to a field of view of a camera of the edge node by the projector (S702, figure 28).
Regarding claim 6, Oda teaches performing a calibration process based on the calibration parameter data by the center node to obtain the calibration result (S706, figure 28); and
Outputting the calibration result to the projector to make the projector project a calibrated image (S708, figure 28).
Regarding claim 10, Oda teaches transmitting the calibration parameter data (S704, figure 28)
Oda (in view of Urano) does not teach in the embodiment relied upon transmitting an image and the calibration parameter data simultaneously.
Oda teaches in an alternative embodiment transmitting the image data to the center node (S103, paragraph 0069). Transmitting this with the calibration parameter data simultaneously would require no undue experimentation for one having ordinary skill in the art.
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 Oda in view of Urano to transmit the image data to with the calibration parameter data simultaneously in order to improve the accuracy of the image calibration process.
Regarding claim 11, Oda teaches the image is a low resolution image or a compressed low capacity image (S103, figure 4).
Regarding claim 13, Oda teaches at least one projector (21, figure 28), at least one center node (PC511, figure 28) configured to transmit a calibration result to the at least one projector (see S708, figure 28); and
At least one edge node (541a, figure 28) electrically connected with the projector and the center node, wherein the edge node comprises a camera (Camera 541a, figure 26), the edge node and is configured to perform image processing on the acquired projection image based on a calibration command (S704, figure 28).
Regarding claim 14, Oda in view of Urano does not teach in the embodiment relied upon that the edge node and center node are disposed at the same mobile device.
Oda teaches in an alternative embodiment that the edge node and the center node are disposed at the same mobile device (Camera 541b, S803-S05, figure 31).
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 Oda in view of Urano to use the alternative embodiment of Oda in order to reduce transmission time for the data between devices (paragraph 0174).
Regarding claim 15, Oda teaches the edge node is disposed at a mobile device (541a, figure 26) and the center node is disposed in a processor control system (511, figure 26).
Regarding claim 16, Oda does not specify that the number of projectors is plural.
Urano teaches the number of projectors is plural (100a-d, figure 2).
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 Oda to use the plural projectors of Urano in order to improve resolution and size in the projection display.
Regarding claim 18, Oda teaches the number of the at least one center node is singular (511, figure 26) and the number of the at least one edge node is singular (541a, figure 26).
Regarding claim 20, Oda in view of Urano teaches the claimed invention except for specifying that the number of center nodes and edge nodes are both plural. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the center and edge nodes both plural, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
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 system of Oda in view of Urano to make the center node and edge node both plural, in order to improve processing and allow flexibility in the positioning of the camera.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (US 2013/0314388 A1) in view of Urano et al. (US 2019/0191134 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oldham et al. (US 2011/0191037 A1).
Regarding claim 3, 4 and 12, Oda in view of Urano does not specify encrypting the calibration parameter data by the edge node, and then decrypting the calibration parameter data by the center node, nor combining and encrypting the image and calibration parameter data as required in claim 12.
Oldham teaches encrypting calibration data (paragraph 0047 and 0049). Encrypting and decrypting data before and after transfer for use in the projection system would require no undue experimentation for one having ordinary skill in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the projection system of Oda in view of Urano to encrypt/decrypt the calibration data as taught in Oldham in order to enhance security and discourage tampering in the projection system (paragraph 0049). Furthermore combining and encrypting the image and calibration data as required in claim 12 could be done for the same reason as encrypting the calibration data alone namely to discourage tampering in the projection system.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (US 2013/0314388 A1) in view of Urano et al. (US 2019/0191134 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2021/0195000 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Oda in view of Urano does not specify splitting the calibration parameter data into a plurality of packages before transmitting calibration data from the edge node to the center node.
Yang teaches splitting data between nodes for transmission between nodes, prior to transmission (paragraph 0017).
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 Oda in view of Urano to use the splitting method of Yang to split the calibration data in order to reduce bandwith resources occupied by the transmission process (paragraph 0017).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (US 2013/0314388 A1) in view of Urano et al. (US 2019/0191134 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Le Houerou et al. (US 2015/0138042 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Oda in view of Urano does not specify the number of the at least one center node is plural, and transmitting a mapping data between the center nodes.
Le Houerou teaches the number of the at least one center node is plural (102, 103, figure 1A), and transmitting a mapping data between the center nodes (paragraph 0089).
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 system of Oda in view of Urano to use multiple center nodes in order to improve processing in the projections system.
Regarding claim 8, Urano further teaches the number of projectors is plural (100a-d, figure 2) and wherein the projectors are configured to project at least one complete calibrated image (1 + 2, figure 2), and a plurality of calibrated images are edge blended to form the complete calibrated image (Overlapped area between projected areas of projector 100a and 100b, figure 2)).
Regarding claim 9, Urano further teaches the number of the at least one complete calibrated images is plural (1+2 and 3+4, figure 2).
Regarding claim 19, Oda teaches the number of edge nodes is singular (541a, figure 26).
Oda in view of Urano does not specify that the number of at least one center node is plural.
Le Houerou teaches the number of the center nodes is plural (102, 103, figure 1A).
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 system of Oda in view of Urano to use multiple center nodes in order to improve processing in the projections system.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oda (US 2013/0314388 A1) in view of Urano et al. (US 2019/0191134 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Harada (US 2009/0002637 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Oda a number of the at least one center node is singular (see 511, figure 26).
Oda in view of Urano does not specify that the number of the at least one edge node is plural.
Harada teaches using plural edge nodes in an image projection system (4-1, 4-2, figure 1).
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 Oda in view of Urano to use the plural edge nodes of Harada in order to make the edge node placement more flexible (paragraph 0008).
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 12/23/2025