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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Regarding Claim 6, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “determining that the first image is an opening pattern”, “determining that the second image is a command pattern”, “determining that the third image is a closing pattern” and “detect a command sequence”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor and camera are generic and the capturing of images is extra-solution data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 7, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “determining that the second image is a command pattern comprises counting a number of blobs in the second image and a number of holes per blob in the second image”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because counting a number of blobs and a number of holes per blob is a mental step and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 8, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “the command pattern comprises a red field or a green 8. field, the opening pattern comprises a black field, and the closing pattern comprises a black field”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor and camera are generic and the capturing of images in a red, green or black field is extra-solution data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 9, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “in response to determining that the second image is not a command pattern and determining that there have been a maximum number of attempts to detect the command pattern, detect a timeout error; in response to determining that the third image is not a closing pattern and that there have been the maximum number of attempts to detect the command pattern, detect the timeout error”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor and camera are generic and the capturing of images is extra-solution data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application . The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 10, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “counting a number of blobs and a number of holes per blob in the second image; determining a hole count confidence level for the number of blobs with holes in the second image; and in response to determining that the hole count confidence level is greater than a threshold, identifying a command based on the number of blobs with holes and determining that the second image is the command pattern”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because counting a number of blobs/holes per blob and determining a hole count confidence level is a mental step and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 11, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “determining that the second image is a command pattern comprises subtracting the first image from the second image”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor and camera are generic and the subtraction of a second image from a first image is extra-solution data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 13, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “counting, by the at least one processor, a number of blobs in the image and a number of holes per blob; determining, by the at least one processor, a hole count confidence level for the number of holes per blob the image”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and the obtaining an image is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “determining, by the at least one processor, that the second image is an opening pattern” and “determining that the hole count confidence level is greater than the threshold”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor and camera are generic and the capturing of images is extra-solution data gathering which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 15, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites in part “determining a dominant active pixel color of the image; and detecting an unknown pattern in response to determining that the dominant active pixel color is a first color”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and determining a dominant active pixel color is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 16, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “the second color is white”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and determining a dominant active pixel color is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 17, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “detecting a pass pattern in the image in response to determining that the dominant active pixel color is a third color; and detecting a fail pattern in the image in response to determining that the dominant active pixel color is a fourth color”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and determining a pass/fail pattern based upon the color of a dominant active pixel is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 18, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining that the hole count confidence level is greater than a threshold is performed based on a statistical mode of a number of holes in the image and a number of blobs in the image”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and the counting of a number of holes and blobs is a mental step which is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 19, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining that the hole count confidence level is greater than a threshold”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and the counting of a number of holes and blobs is a mental step which is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Regarding Claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “determining that the hole count confidence level is less than or equal to a threshold”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the processor is generic and the counting of a number of holes and blobs is a mental step which is extra-solution data gathering and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional steps are insignificant extra-solution data gathering and do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the projected gaussian pattern" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination “the projected gaussian pattern” will be interpreted as “a projected gaussian pattern”. Claim 4 and all claims dependent therefrom are rejected as being indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kinoshita (US 2023/0171386; hereinafter referred to as Kinoshita).
Regarding Claim 1, Kinoshita teaches a system (Figure 2; Projector 10) comprising:
at least one processor (Figure 2; Processor 19) configured to determine a command pattern (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0066]; wherein it is disclosed that the second processor 19B determines based on the image data obtained from the second camera 13B whether an image including the instruction pattern P is acquired); and
a projector (Figure 2; Image Generation Panel 11 and Projection Optical System 12) coupled to the at least one processor (Figure 2; Processor 19; Paragraph [0028]; wherein it is disclosed that light emission amounts of the color lights are controlled for each of the pixels by the processor 19, whereby the image light L is emitted to the projection optical system 12 from the image generation panel 11), the projector (Figure 2; Image Generation Panel 11 and Projection Optical System 12) configured to:
project an opening pattern (Figure 3; Step S3; Paragraph [0050]; wherein it is disclosed that the first processor 19A controls the first image generation panel 11A to thereby display the first image 100A including an activate pattern 301 on the projection surface 200);
project the command pattern after projecting the opening pattern (Figure 3; Step S5; Paragraph [0055]; wherein it is disclosed that the first processor 19A controls the first image generation panel 11A based on a remote operation signal input from the first light receiver 16A to thereby display the first image 100A including the instruction pattern corresponding to the first instruction input via an operation key of the remote controller (step S5). The first processor 19A of the first projector 10A may, after receiving the success response pattern 302, display the first image 100A including a message for urging the user to operate the remote controller and input the first instruction); and
project a closing pattern after projecting the command pattern (Figure 3; Step S9; Paragraph [0077]; wherein it is disclosed that the first processor 19A controls the first image generation panel 11A to thereby display the first image 100A including an end pattern 304 (step S9). FIG. 12 is a diagram showing a state in which the first projector 10A displays the end pattern 304. As shown in FIG. 12, the end pattern 304 included in the first image 100A is, as an example, a figure having a black color and a circular shape).
Regarding Claim 3, Kinoshita teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kinoshita further teaches a camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) coupled to the at least one processor (Figure 2; Processor 19), the camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) configured to capture a response pattern after projecting the closing pattern (see Paragraph [0078]; wherein it is disclosed that in step S16, the second processor 19B determines based on the image data obtained from the second camera 13B whether an image including the end pattern 304 is acquired).
Regarding Claim 6, Kinoshita teaches a system (Figure 2; Projector 10) comprising:
a camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) configured to capture a first image (see Figure 4 and Paragraph [0051]; wherein it is disclosed that the second processor 19B determines based on image data obtained from the second camera 13B whether the activate pattern 301 is received (step S11));
at least one processor (Figure 2; Processor 19) coupled to the camera (Figure 2; Camera 13), the at least one processor (Figure 2; Processor 19) configured to:
in response to determining that the first image is an opening pattern, instruct the camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) to capture a second image, wherein the camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) is configured to capture the second image (see Paragraph [0066]; wherein it is disclosed that the second processor 19B determines based on the image data obtained from the second camera 13B whether an image including the instruction pattern P is acquired);
in response to determining that the second image is a command pattern (see Paragraph [0066]; wherein it is disclosed that the second processor 19B determines based on the image data obtained from the second camera 13B whether an image including the instruction pattern P is acquired):
instruct the camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) to capture a third image, wherein the camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) is configured to capture the third image (see Paragraph [0078]; wherein it is disclosed that in step S16, the second processor 19B determines based on the image data obtained from the second camera 13B whether an image including the end pattern 304 is acquired); and
in response to determining that the third image is a closing pattern, detect a command sequence (see Paragraph [0079]; wherein it is disclosed that when receiving the end pattern 304 (Yes in step S16), that is, when acquiring an image including the end pattern 304, the second processor 19B controls the second image generation panel 11B to thereby display the second image 100B including a success response pattern 305 indicating that the reception of the end pattern 304 is successful and, thereafter, ends the processing in the CC mode (step S17)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 2023/0171386; hereinafter referred to as Kinoshita) in view of Grundhofer (US 2016/0134851).
Regarding Claim 2, Kinoshita teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kinoshita does not expressly disclose that the command pattern comprises blobs with holes per blob.
Grundhofer discloses a command pattern which comprises blobs with holes per blob (see Figures 4A-4I and Paragraph [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Kinoshita such that the command pattern comprises blobs with holes per blob, as taught by Grundhofer, because doing so would provide sub-pixel accuracy for the location of the center of a pattern element (see Grundhofer Paragraph [0068]).
Claims 4-5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 2023/0171386; hereinafter referred to as Kinoshita) as applied to claims 1 and 6, in view of De La Cruz et al (US 2019/0146313; hereinafter referred to as Cruz).
Regarding Claim 4, Kinoshita teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Kinoshita further discloses the system (Figure 2; Projector 10) further comprises a camera (Figure 2; Camera 13) coupled to the at least one processor (Figure 2; Processor 19).
Kinoshita does not expressly disclose that the command pattern comprises a gaussian pattern, the camera configured to capture an image of the projected gaussian pattern.
Cruz discloses a system (Figures 1A and 1B), comprising a command pattern which comprises a gaussian pattern (see Paragraph [0104]), and wherein the system (Figures 1A and 1B) further comprises a camera (Figures 1A and 1B; Cameras 120a and 120b) coupled to at least one processor (Figure 49; IC 4900), the camera (Figures 1A and 1B; Cameras 120a and 120b) configured to capture an image of the projected gaussian pattern (see Paragraph [0246]; wherein it is disclosed that the sparse discrete structured light patterns are projected by the projector upon a projection screen surface in sequence and captured by the camera).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Kinoshita such that the command pattern comprises a gaussian pattern, and the camera is configured to capture an image of the projected gaussian pattern, as taught by Cruz, because doing so would allow for the sparse structured light patterns to be more rapidly processed as compared with processing other more complex structured light patterns (see Cruz Paragraph [0104]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kinoshita as modified by Cruz discloses the limitations of claim 4 as detailed above.
Cruz further discloses the at least one processor (Figure 49; IC 4900) is further configured to produce a first point cloud based on the gaussian pattern and the camera (Figures 1A and 1B; Cameras 120a and 120b) is further configured to capture an image of a second point cloud (see Paragraph [0087]; wherein it is disclosed that the captured camera frames of the structured light patterns can be stored in an embodying ASIC's memory for processing and for generation of the three-dimensional point cloud (3D point cloud) for characterizing the projection screen surface).
Regarding Claim 12, Kinoshita teaches the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above.
Kinoshita does not expressly disclose that the command pattern comprises a gaussian pattern, the at least one processor further configured to produce a point cloud based on the gaussian pattern, the system further comprising: a projector configured to project the point cloud.
Cruz discloses a command pattern comprises a gaussian pattern (see Paragraph [0104]), the at least one processor (Figure 49; IC 4900) further configured to produce a point cloud based on the gaussian pattern (see Paragraph [0087]; wherein it is disclosed that the captured camera frames of the structured light patterns can be stored in an embodying ASIC's memory for processing and for generation of the three-dimensional point cloud (3D point cloud) for characterizing the projection screen surface), the system (Figures 1A and 1B) further comprising: a projector (Figures 1A and 1B; Projector 110a and 110b) configured to project the point cloud (see Paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to modify the system of Kinoshita such that the command pattern comprises a gaussian pattern, the at least one processor further configured to produce a point cloud based on the gaussian pattern, the system further comprising: a projector configured to project the point cloud, as taught by Cruz, because doing so would allow for the sparse structured light patterns to be more rapidly processed as compared with processing other more complex structured light patterns (see Cruz Paragraph [0104]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kinoshita (US 2023/0171386; hereinafter referred to as Kinoshita) as applied to claim 6.
Regarding Claim 8, Kinoshita teaches the limitations of claim 6 as detailed above.
Kinoshita discloses the command pattern comprises a red field or a green field (see Paragraph [0057]; wherein it is disclosed that when the content of the first instruction relates to a lens focus setting function, the first color of the first figure P1 is set to green and when the content of the first instruction relates to a power supply switching function, the first color of the first figure P1 is set to red), the opening pattern comprises a green field (see Paragraph [0050]; wherein it is disclosed that the activate pattern 301 included in the first image 100A is, as an example, a figure having a green color and a circular shape), and the closing pattern comprises a black field (see Paragraph [0077]; wherein it is disclosed that the end pattern 304 included in the first image 100A is, as an example, a figure having a black color and a circular shape).
Kinoshita does not expressly disclose that the opening pattern comprises a black field.
However, Kinoshita does disclose that the opening pattern comprises a green field. The applicant has not stated that any long standing or stated problem in the art is solved by utilizing a black color opposed to any other color (i.e. green).
Therefore, absent any showing of criticality, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to utilize any desired color field as the opening pattern as it appears the invention would perform equally well (functionally equivalent).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm EST.
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 (571) 272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882