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 .
Status
The filing on 05/27/2026 amended claims 1, 8 and 9. Claims 1-9 are pending and rejected on new grounds of rejections necessitated by the amendments of claims 1, 8 and 9.
Objection/s to the Application, Drawings and Claims
The filing on 05/27/2026 appropriately amended the title; hence the objections to the title made in the last office action are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - AIA 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshimura (US 20130083058 A1) in view of Fujisaki (US 20110069235 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Yoshimura teaches a method of displaying an image or a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program configured to make a processor (20) execute processing (Fig. 1-12; [0070]-[0074], [0077]-[0080], [0082]-[0085], [0087], [0092], [0094], [0098], [0099], [0112], [0114]) comprising: displaying a control point image (QD#) representing two or more control points (CP) to be used for shape correction of a projection image of a projector (1; S101; [0092]); receiving a first operation of moving a first control point (CP) as one of the two or more control points (CP) from a first position to a second position (S103; [0071], [0093], [0094], [0098]); displaying a first image (PGA) representing the first control point (CP) before the movement at the first position when the first operation is received (S102); and displaying a second image (PGB) representing the first control point (CP) after the movement at the second position when the first operation is received (S104; [0078], [0094], [0112]).
Yoshimura does not explicitly teach displaying the second image representing the first control point after the movement at the second position when the first operation is received, while displaying the first image.
Fujisaki teaches displaying the second image (B1) representing the first control point after the movement at the second position when the first operation is received, while displaying the first image (B; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yoshimura with Fujisaki; because it provides clarity for the user when observing the operation of the correction steps.
Regarding claim 2, Yoshimura further teaches the displaying the first image (PGA) and the second image (PGB) includes making a display configuration of the second image (PGB) different from a display configuration of the first image (PGA; Fig. 6A-9; [0094]).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshimura further teaches displaying the first image (PGA) at the second position when a second operation (S110) of fixing a position of the first control point (CP) to the second position is received (Fig. 10; [0097]).
Regarding claim 4, Yoshimura further teaches deleting the first image (PGA) displayed at the first position when the second operation (S110) is received (Fig. 10; [0097]).
Regarding claim 5, Yoshimura further teaches displaying an image representing a line segment (QD#) connecting the first control point (CP) at the first position and a second control point adjacent to the first control point (CP) out of the two or more control points (CP) to each other (S101; Fig. 4A-4C, 6A); and displaying a first line segment image (G2, G3, G4) which represents a first line segment connecting the first control point (CP) at the first position and the second control point adjacent to the first control point (CP) out of the two or more control points (CP) to each other, and which is different in display configuration from the image representing the line segment, when an operation of selecting the first control point (CP) at the first position included in the first operation is received (S112; Fig. 6A, 6B, 7).
Regarding claim 6, Yoshimura further teaches displaying a second line segment image (G8) representing a second line segment connecting the first control point (CP) at the second position and the second control point to each other when the first operation is received (S109; Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshimura further teaches the displaying the second line segment image (G8) includes making a display configuration of the second line segment image (G8) different from a display configuration of the first line segment image (G2, G3, G4; Fig. 6A, 6B, 7, 9).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshimura teaches a projector (1) comprising: an optical device (10); an input device (24) configured to receive an operation of a user; and at least one processor (20, [0041]), wherein the at least one processor (20) is configured to execute making the optical device (10) display a control point image (QD#) representing two or more control points (CP) to be used for shape correction of a projection image of the projector (1; S101; [0092]), receiving, via the input device (24), a first operation of moving a first control point (CP) as one of the two or more control points (CP) from a first position to a second position (S103; [0071], [0093], [0094], [0098]), making the optical device (10) display a first image (PGA) representing the first control point (CP) before the movement at the first position when the first operation is received (S102), and making the optical device (10) display a second image (PGB) representing the first control point (CP) after the movement at the second position when the first operation is received (S104; [0078], [0094], [0112]).
Yoshimura does not explicitly teach displaying the second image representing the first control point after the movement at the second position when the first operation is received, while displaying the first image.
Fujisaki teaches displaying the second image (B1) representing the first control point after the movement at the second position when the first operation is received, while displaying the first image (B; Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to combine Yoshimura with Fujisaki; because it provides clarity for the user when observing the operation of the correction steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claim 1-9 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO-LUAN Q LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5362. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-5:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached on (571) 272 230303. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
Or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Or:
(571) 273-7490, (for informal or draft communications, please label “PROPOSED” or “DRAFT”)
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
/BAO-LUAN Q LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2882
Prosecution Insights