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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 18 have been amended; claims 5, 14, 19-25 have been canceled. Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederlof (U.S. 9268520) in view of Niesten (Pub 20070109506) in view of Ichieda (Pub 20130093672).
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Cederlof discloses at least one memory and computer-executable instructions, and at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the computer-executable instructions to, (memory 120 and processors 116fig 1):
causing projection of a first image onto a first projection area of a surface, (502 fig 5)
detect an object obstructing the first projection area based on depth data associated with the first projection area, (col. 5 lines 56-64, depth sensing for object detection and 504 fig 5)
determine based on at least a portion of the depth data associated with the object, a second projection area that avoids the object, (see different location determined based on identified user, (col. 10 lines 64-67 – col. 11 lines 1 -9);
generate a second image to be projected on the second projection area, the second image based on the first image, and causing projection of the second image onto the second projection area, (506 fig 5 projecting content onto different location in the environment).
However, the second projection area having a different boundary than the first projection area is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Niesten discloses the second projection area having a different boundary than the first projection area, (Para. [0046] see changing size and/or shifting a projection image to avoid an obstruction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Cederlof by Niesten for the benefit of excluding obstacles from a projection area thereby allowing full image projection thereby enhancing a user’s enjoyment.
However, the first image having a first resolution is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ichieda discloses generating and displaying an image having a first resolution, (Para. [0081] see image processing part 113 develops the image data input via the image input part 104, executes resolution conversion and generates an image signal in a predetermined format). One of ordinary skill in the art would include generating an image in a particular resolution and displaying the image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Ichieda so that a corrected image is generated and displayed based on the type of input signal format thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, the combination discloses claim 1. Zhang however does not disclose image resolution.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ichieda discloses wherein the second image has a same resolution as the first image, (Para. [0081] see projector 11 may change resolution of the input image or may display the image data with resolution of the input image data maintained). One of ordinary skill in the art would include generating an image in a particular resolution and displaying the image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang by Ichieda so that a corrected image is generated and displayed based on the type of input signal format thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, the combination discloses claim 1. However, the first projection area is non-perpendicular to an axis of a lens of a projector is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ichieda discloses wherein the first projection area is non-perpendicular to an axis of a lens of a projector, (Para. [0116] note keystone correction is a correction related to non-perpendicular positioning of a projector relative to a projection surface). One of ordinary skill in the art would include correcting an image before displaying the image. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zhang by Ichieda so that a corrected image is generated and displayed based on the type of input signal format and projector positioning thereby enhancing the user’s experience.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederlof in view of Niesten in view of Ichieda in view of Zhang (Pub 20210368147)
Regarding claims 2 and 11, the combination discloses claims 1and 10. However, applying a homograph matrix is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Zhang discloses one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to determine the second projection area by applying a homograph matrix between a relationship of the first image and the first projection area, (see matrix, transformation relationship and homography in Para. [0038-039] and Fig 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Zhang for the benefit of determining projector to surface alignment thereby displaying adjusted images that are suitable to view.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederlof in view of Niesten in view of Ichieda in view of Bassi (Pub 20080062164).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, the combination discloses claim 1. However,
generating a largest rectangle while keeping the image resolution are not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bassi discloses one or more of the at least one
processor circuit is to generate a largest rectangle associated with the first projected area based on the first resolution and the depth data from the depth camera device, (see determining rectangular regions based on camera input data in Para. [0091] and rectangle A’B’C’D within envelop ABCD fig 5 and Para. [0100]). One of ordinary skill in the art would include the camera input related data and the generated rectangle of Bassi in the combination so that image distortion is corrected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by incorporating Bassi for the common purpose of displaying distortion free images thereby improving the user’s experience.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederlof in view of Niesten in view of Ichieda in view of Aruga (Pub 20140118705).
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Cederlof discloses one or more of the at least one processor circuit performs object detection, (col. 5 lines 56-64, depth sensing for object detection and 504 fig 5) and determines a second area to avoid the detected object, , (see different location determined based on identified user, (col. 10 lines 64-67 – col. 11 lines 1 -9).
However, reshaping a projection area to avoid an object is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Aruga discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to reshape the first projection area, (see calculating position where projected image is divided S6 and correcting and updating the projected image S7. Further see avoidance area 138a fig 5 and Para. [0068]). One of ordinary skill in the art would include the object detection of Aruga in the combination so that free distortion images may be projected. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination so that projection images may be corrected when an obstacle exists between a projector and a projection surface.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederlof in view of Niesten in view of Ichieda in view of Furui (Pub 20130235082).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, the combination discloses claim 1. However, a raised
edge of a projection surface is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Furui discloses wherein the surface includes a
raised edge, (note line detection part 123 Para. [0054] for detecting screen frame which is construed as a raised edge). One of ordinary skill in the art would include the edge determination of Furui in the combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by incorporating the edge determination thereby allowing an image to align with a projection surface outline thereby allowing a user to view projected images with ease.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cederlof in view of Niesten in view of Ichieda in view of Furui in view of Aso (Pub 20090040396).
Regarding claims 9 and 18, the combination discloses claim 8. However, depth
data includes pixel positions of corners of projection area , projection position of the first projection area, and shape information of a projection area are not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Aso discloses wherein the depth data
includes pixel positions of four corners of the first projection area, projection position of the first projection area, and shape information of the first projection area, (see Para. [0027] see determining shape after distortion correction. Note also determining 3d coordinate values of corners for image correction). One of ordinary skill in the art would include the technique of Yamaguchi in the combination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Aso for the benefit of correction projection images taking into account projection distortion and shape thereby allowing improved correction of projected images.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
HUMAM M. SATTI
Examiner
Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422