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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s submission of a response was received on 5/11/26.
In the response Applicant amended claim(s) 1-4, 6, 19, 21-22.
Claim(s) 5, 7-8, 20 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 10-18 is/are withdrawn.
Currently, claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 19, 21-23 is/are pending.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 9 allowed.
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.
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) 19, 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec et al. (2017/0365101) in view of Wendt (NPL: Binocular luster – A review).
Re Claim 19,
Samec discloses a method for generating a shimmering effect for multimedia applications, comprising the steps of:
presenting a first visual stimulus to a user’s left eye; simultaneously presenting at least a second visual stimulus to the viewer's right eye (¶¶0500-0501; the presented images may provide for chromatic rivalry by differing in color configurations); and
wherein the first visual stimulus and the at least second visual stimulus are configured such that the user’s brain cannot resolve the first visual stimulus and second visual stimulus into a single coherent image, thereby producing binocular rivalry and the perception of shimmer in the user (Fig 2, 11, ¶¶0418-0419, 0500-0501; the display system may be configured to perform visual perception tests such as binocular rivalry-based tests by providing stimuli that may include a different image displayed to each eye, which may create conflict in processing visual input in the brain).
Samec does not explicitly disclose presenting different color to different eye and utilizing the perception of shimmer in video or file special effects to enhance visual content.
However, Wendt teaches presenting different color to different eye and utilizing the perception of shimmer in video or file special effects to enhance visual content (pg 1-9; binocular luster can be produced when the two eyes receive different color stimuli). Wendt further teaches such a configuration generates a lustrous sensation for the user (pg 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Wendt into the system of Samec in order to generate a lustrous sensation for the user.
Re Claim 21,
Samec discloses the first color comprises a primary color and/or wherein the first visual stimulus and the at least second visual stimulus comprise complementary colors to enhance the perception of shimmer (¶¶0500-0501).
Re Claim 22,
Samec discloses the first visual stimulus and the at least second visual stimulus include geometric shapes and/or wherein the first visual stimulus and the at least second visual stimulus comprise a narrative in video or film (¶¶0500-0501).
Re Claim 23,
Samec discloses adjusting the intensity of stimulus presented (¶¶0441, 0659).
Response to Arguments
Applicant is advised that should the instant application be found allowable, withdrawn claim 10-18 will be needed to be cancelled.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 19, 21-23 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.
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 JASON TAHAI YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1777. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7am- 3pm PST.
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, Dmitry Suhol can be reached at 571-272-4430. 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.
/JASON T YEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights