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 .
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1, 14, and 15 are amended; the rejection of the claims traversed; and claims 2, 9, 12, and 13 are cancelled. Claims 1, 3 – 8, 10 – 11, and 14 – 15 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 10 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argues the prior art (Osada and Yoshimura) does not disclose at least “each of yaw, pitch, and roll in coordination to maintain the parallax effect by maintaining relative yaw, pitch and roll with respect to the viewer that keeps the relative position of the viewer within the predetermined viewing region.” The Office respectfully disagrees and submits the combination of Osada and Yoshimura renders the claimed subject matter obvious based on combining prior art elements as discussed in the rejection of the claims below. Applicants argue that modification of Osada with the teaching of Yoshimura would require major redesign and violate the intended purpose of the Osada. However, the Office respectfully disagrees and submits the disclosure of Yoshimura is directed to maintaining a tilt (or roll) orientation with respect to the movement of the user relative to the display. Therefore, combining this element with the disclosure of Osada would not violate the intended purpose of maintaining an orientation of the display with respect to the user to maintain a stereoscopic effect. Further, the office submits such a modification is within the level of ordinary skill in the art as demonstrated by the references applied.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3 – 6, 10 – 11, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojiro Osada (Publication number: JPH09168170A), hereafter Osada, in view of Yoshimura et al; (Publication number: JPH09205603 A1), hereafter Yoshimura. Note an English-language machine translation of the references is relied upon in the rejection of the claims below.
Regarding claim 1:
Osada discloses an apparatus (Osada Figure 1; [0016] stereoscopic image display; [0026]), the apparatus comprising:
reception circuitry to receive (Osada Figure 1 17), from at least one location-tracking device, location information indicative of a location of a viewer (Osada Figure 1 13; [0027] camera 13 images observer 7);
position-tracking circuitry that, response to receiving the location information determine a relative position of the viewer relative to the 3D display screen held by the apparatus (Osada [0027] position of eyes relative to a 3D display are determined by position tracking circuitry 17);
viewing-region-checking circuitry to determine whether the relative position of the viewer is within a predetermined viewing region, wherein the predetermined viewing region comprises a region within which an image displayed on the 3D display screen causes a parallax effect to be visible with respect to an object of the image when viewed by the viewer positioned in the predetermined viewing region (Osada [0033]; Figure 3 see rhombic region); and
adjustment control circuitry (Osada Figure 1 driver unit 25 and rotation driving unit 11) response to the viewing-region-checking-circuitry to adjust an orientation of the 3D display screen with respect to each of yaw and pitch in coordination to maintain the parallax effect by maintain a relative yaw and pitch with respect to the viewer that keeps the relative position of the viewer within the predetermined viewing region (Osada [0032][0045]).
In Osada, the adjustment by the circuitry with respect to roll is not disclosed. However, Yoshimura discloses an image display device. More particularly, Yoshimura discloses detecting the tilt (roll) of the user and adjusting the roll of the display to match the inclination of the user (Yoshimura Figure 6A and 6B; [0026]).
It would have been obvious to modify Osada to include roll of the user wherein the adjustment control circuitry response to the viewing-region-checking-circuitry to adjust an orientation of the 3D display screen with respect to each of yaw, pitch, AND roll in coordination to maintain the parallax effect by maintain a relative yaw and pitch with respect to the viewer that keeps the relative position of the viewer within the predetermined viewing region, because such a combination would be based on combining prior art element according to known methods to yield predictable result. More particularly, modifying the stereoscopic display device 1 of Osada to include tilt (roll) adjustment disclosed by Yoshimura is known to yield the predictable result of setting an optimum inclination of the display screen without bother the viewer (Yoshimura [0012]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate including in Osada a tilt (roll) compensation for the display since the claimed invention is a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element would perform the same function it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results were predictable.
Regarding claim 3:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the predetermined viewing region comprises a region within which the at least one location-tracking device is capable of tracking the viewer (Osada [0033] Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the adjustment control circuitry comprises at least one of: rotation circuitry to adjust the orientation of the 3D display screen by rotating the display screen about one or more axes of rotation; and translation circuitry to adjust a position of the 3D display screen (Osada [0029][0032]).
Regarding claim 5:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the reception circuitry is configured to receive, as the location information, image data captured by at least one camera; and the position-tracking circuitry comprises image recognition circuitry to determined, based on the image data, the relative position of the viewer (Osada [0027 – 0028] [0033]).
Regarding claim 6:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) discloses the apparatus of claim 5, further comprising image processing circuitry configured to perform an object recognition process to identify a given object within the image, and then to perform object tracking to determine relative position of the viewer, wherein the object recognition process comprises a facial recognition process and the identified object comprises at least one of an object identified as a face and an object identified as an eye (Osada [0027] position detection camera used to detect position of his/her eyes).
Regarding claim 10:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) discloses the apparatus of claim 1, comprising the 3D display screen (Osada Figure 1 image display 3 is stereoscopic image display 1).
Regarding claim 11:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) discloses the apparatus of claim 10, wherein the 3D display screen comprises a spatial reality display screen (Osada [0002][0004 – 0005]).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojiro Osada (Publication number: JPH09168170A), hereafter Osada, in view of Yoshimura et al; (Publication number: JPH09205603 A1), hereafter Yoshimura, in view of Hwang et al; (Patent number: US 7, 898, 429 B2), hereafter Hwang. Note an English-language machine translation of the references is relied upon in the rejection of the claims below.
Regarding claim 7:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) does not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the reception circuitry is configured to receive, as the location information, audio data recorded by at least one microphone; and the position-tracking circuity comprises audio processing circuity to determine, based on the audio data, the relative position of the viewer.
However, Hwang discloses an angle-adjustable method and automatic angle-adjustable display device. More particularly, Hwang discloses an automatic-adjustable display device which monitors the viewer’s position by detecting wireless signals emitted from the wireless transmitting and receiving sensor and reflected from the user. These transmitting and receiving sensor include ultrasonic transmitting and receiving sensors (Hwang Col 13 lines 14 – 31).
It would have been obvious to further modify Osada (in view of Yoshimura) wherein: the reception circuitry is configured to receive, as the location information, audio data recorded by at least one microphone; and the position-tracking circuity comprises audio processing circuity to determine, based on the audio data, the relative position of the viewer, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate reducing the need for image-based position determination, thereby simplifying operation.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shojiro Osada (Publication number: JPH09168170A), hereafter Osada, in view of Yoshimura et al; (Publication number: JPH09205603 A1), hereafter Yoshimura, in view of Abeloe, Kenneth A. (Publication number: US 2011/0267437 A1), hereafter Abeloe. Note an English-language machine translation of the references is relied upon in the rejection of the claims below.
Regarding claim 8:
Osada (in view of Yoshimura) does not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reception circuitry is configured to receive the location information from at least one handheld and/or wearable device.
However, Abeloe discloses the reception circuitry is configured to receive the location information from at leastone handheld and/or wearable device (Abeloe [0056] Glasses tracker performing motion tracking; see Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to further modify Osada (in view of Yoshimura) wherein the reception circuitry is configured to receive the location information from at least one handheld and/or wearable device, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to synchronize the stereoscopic images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 16, the prior art does not disclose the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a turntable attached with the 3D display screen such that: (i) rotating the turntable about a yaw axis adjusts the yaw of the 3D display screen; (ii) tilting the turntable about a pitch axis adjusts the pitch of the 3D display screen; and (iii) tilting the turntable about a roll axis adjusts the roll of the 3D display screen; wherein the yaw axis, the pitch axis and the roll axis are orthogonal to one another.
As an example of the prior art, Yoshizumi, Shingo (Publication number: US 2011/0181690 A1), hereafter Yoshizumi, discloses an imaging control apparatus, imaging apparatus, imaging control method, and program. More particularly, Yoshizumi discloses a pan/tilt head 10 which is configured to pan and tilt a camera 1 mounted thereon (Yoshizumi Figure 4). However, the prior art does not disclose a turntable attached with the 3D display screen such that: (i) rotating the turntable about a yaw axis adjusts the yaw of the 3D display screen; (ii) tilting the turntable about a pitch axis adjusts the pitch of the 3D display screen; and (iii) tilting the turntable about a roll axis adjusts the roll of the 3D display screen; wherein the yaw axis, the pitch axis and the roll axis are orthogonal to one another, as claimed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yoshizumi, Shingo (Publication number: US 2011/0181690 A1).
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 MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 24 Augst 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights