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 Interpretation
The claim amendments have incorporated structure that performs the claimed functions; thus the claimed are no longer interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 are objected to because of minor typographical and grammatical errors, as outlined below. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1:
In the first functional limitation, this claim recites “as a function of a fatigue data acquisition unit, acquire…” This phrase presents a grammatical issue, and should be amended to read, for example, --as a function of a fatigue data acquisition unit, acquiring…--.
The remaining limitations recite a similar issue as that described above, and should be amended to read --calculating--, --adjusting--, and --acquiring--.
Regarding claim 2:
In the first limitation, this claim recites “the commands contains…” This phrase presents a grammatical issue with improper subject-verb agreement, and should be amended to read --the commands contain--.
Additionally in the first limitation, the claim recites (incorporating the above correction) “the commands contain, as a function of a recording unit in which…” However, this sentence lacks a predicate, which can confuse the scope of the limitation, although the Examiner can understand what was meant. The Examiner suggests amending this phrase to read, for example, --the commands contain a function of a recording unit in which…--.
In the second and third limitations, this claim recites “the function of the…unit executed by the command is that acquires…” There are two issues with this phrase: first, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the command” and second, this phrase is not grammatically correct and can confuse the scope of the limitation. In both cases, however, the Examiner can understand what was meant. The Examiner suggests amending this phrase to read, for example, --the function of the…unit further acquires…--.
Regarding claim 3:
Similar to claim 2, in the first and second limitations, this claim recites “the function of the…unit executed by the command is that acquires…” There are two issues with this phrase: first, there is no antecedent basis for the term “the command” and second, this phrase is not grammatically correct and can confuse the scope of the limitation. In both cases, however, the Examiner can understand what was meant. The Examiner suggests amending this phrase to read, for example, --the function of the…unit further acquires…--.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tabata et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,614,927), referred herein as Tabata, in view of Yanagisawa (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0154435), referred herein as Yanagisawa.
Regarding claim 1, Tabata teaches an image generation device comprising: a processor or a circuit configured to execute commands stored in a memory (figure 6, which shares components described in figures 1 and 5; column 1, lines 58-67; column 2, lines column 5, lines 2-5; column 6, lines 17-24) the commands including:
as a function of a fatigue data acquisition unit, acquire fatigue data (fig 6, fatigue data acquisition unit 3; column 3, lines 61-63; column 6, lines 26-30; column 7, lines 11-16; fatigue data of an observer is determined);
as a function of a parallax adjustment value data acquisition unit, calculate parallax adjustment value data including a parallax adjustment value on the basis of the fatigue data (fig 6, parallax adjustment value data acquisition unit 2; column 3, lines 58-61; column 6, lines 21-25; column 7, lines 13-22; parallax adjustment amounts are calculated based on the fatigue data); and
as a function of a parallax adjustment unit, adjust a parallax of an image on a basis of the parallax adjustment value (fig 6, parallax adjustment unit 6; column 6, line 66 through column 7, line 10; parallax is adjusted accordingly to reduce or prevent fatigue), wherein
as a function of the parallax adjustment value data acquisition unit, acquires the parallax adjustment value data indicating the parallax adjustment value for making an amount of change in parallax of the image per unit time equal to or smaller than a predetermined amount of change when the fatigue data indicates that a fatigue degree of the viewer changes in excess of a predetermined threshold within a predetermined time (figs 7A-7D; column 5, lines 29-38, 43-49, and 53-66; column 6, lines 36-46; column 7, lines 2-22 and 26-38; temporal calculations are performed and time is accumulated to determine when a degree of fatigue exceeds a threshold).
As shown above, Tabata teaches adjusting parallax based on acquired fatigue data, the purpose of which is to reduce the biological effect of fatigue on a viewer. It is also noted that Tabata describes that it is known to obtain fatigue data based on biological information of the viewer (see, for example, column 1, lines 49-67). However, Tabata does state that in its disclosed invention in particular, direct biological information of the viewer is not obtained in order to achieve the adjustment; thus Tabata does not teach acquiring fatigue data based on changes in biological information of a viewer, as claimed.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yanagisawa teaches an image generation device comprising a processor or circuit configured to execute commands stored in a memory (figs 5A and 5B; paragraphs 108 and 109), the commands comprising acquiring fatigue data based on changes in biological information of a viewer (paragraphs 99 and 102; paragraphs 105 and 107; paragraphs 112 and 113), and making adjustments to relieve a degree of viewer fatigue based on the fatigue data (paragraphs 114 and 115; paragraph 117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the biological information parallax adjustment of Yanagisawa with the parallax adjustment of Tabata because this helps to provide a strong, but natural stereoscopic effect, without inducing greater fatigue (see, for example, Yanagisawa, paragraphs 19 and 20; paragraph 117); thus adding a biological metric to the parallax adjustment of Tabata would serve to further improve the accuracy of the parallax adjustment and further reduce fatigue.
Regarding claim 2, Tabata in view of Yanagisawa teaches the image generation device according to claim 1, wherein: the commands contain, as a function of a recording unit in which the fatigue data and the parallax adjustment value data are recorded in association with each other (Tabata, fig 5, the internal components of units 2 and 3, in the context of figure 6; column 3, lines 58-63; column 5, lines 5-11; column 6, lines 26-30 and 36-46), wherein
the function of the fatigue data acquisition unit executed by the command is that acquires first fatigue data when a first still image in a moving image has been displayed, and acquires second fatigue data when a second still image displayed after the first still image is displayed (Tabata, figs 7A-7D; column 5, lines 43-49; column 6, lines 21-30 and 36-46; column 7, lines 11-22; fatigue is determined based on successive temporal left and right frames [which are still images] of input video data), and
the function of the parallax adjustment value data acquisition unit executed by the command is that acquires the first fatigue data and the second fatigue data from the fatigue data acquisition unit, acquires the parallax adjustment value data corresponding to the fatigue data from the recording unit, and adjusts a parallax of an image to be displayed, from the first acquired fatigue data and the second acquired fatigue data and the parallax adjustment value based on the parallax adjustment value data (Tabata, figs 7A-7D; column 5, lines 29-38, 43-49, and 53-66; column 6, lines 36-46; column 7, lines 2-22 and 26-38; each successive frame’s fatigue data is obtained and processed to determine an appropriate parallax adjustment that reduces, or prevents, fatigue).
Regarding claim 3, Tabata in view of Yanagisawa teaches the image generation device according to claim 2, wherein the function of the fatigue data acquisition unit executed by the command is that acquires the fatigue data from each of a plurality of viewers who have viewed a still image in a moving image, and the function of the parallax adjustment value data acquisition unit executed by the command is that acquires the parallax adjustment value data indicating the parallax adjustment value calculated on the basis of the fatigue data acquired from each of the plurality of viewers who have viewed the still image in the moving image (Tabata, figs 7A-7D; column 2, lines 1-8; column 5, lines 61-66; column 7, lines 2-22 and 26-38; the parallax adjustment algorithm is designed to accommodate fatigue information suitable to all the observers, and individual observers can also set their own fatigue parameters; the parallax adjustments are made accordingly, in order to reduce, or prevent, fatigue in observers; see also Yanagisawa, paragraph 132, the motivation being similar to that discussed above in the rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered, and are persuasive. As noted above, the claim amendments positively recite the structure performing the functions; thus the 112(f) interpretation is no longer being applied to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 102 rejections have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. It is agreed that Tabata does not disclose acquiring fatigue data based on biological information of the viewer; however, it is respectfully submitted that Yanagisawa teaches this limitation, as shown above.
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 DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613