KDETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 22, 23, 24, 25 have been added.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed July 31st 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 1st 2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-25 are currently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot because of a new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that Cox does not teach dimensional perspective, however under the new grounds of rejection, Naemura does teach applying a dimensional perspective by adding a shadow that depends on the position of the optical device.
PNG
media_image1.png
226
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Naemura also teaches that an artificial light source is introduced based on an onboard sensor in embodiment b, where the virtual light source creates shadows based on the 3d sensor. This adds a completely artificial light, without compromising the utility of an infrared system.
PNG
media_image2.png
270
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Naemura also teaches casting shadows based on the position of the optical device as seen in the real to virtual shadow section of Naemura.
Kontinnen teaches that the virtual light sources are fixed in direction, therefore in combination with Cox and Naemura, the additional limitations of “altering” the target image teach the features of claim 1.
PNG
media_image3.png
263
341
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that claims 1 and 11 are additionally patentable over Ophir. Ophir was not used in the rejection therefore, the argument is considered moot.
Applicant argues that claim 22-25 are additionally patentable over Ophir. Ophir was not used in the rejection therefore, the argument is considered moot.
Applicant argues that the rejection for claims 2 and 12 do not disclose the “altering” limitation of amended Claim 1, that rejection is moot because of the new grounds for rejection introduced.
Applicant argues that the rejection for claims 3, 4, 6-9 and 13, 14, 16-19 do not disclose the “altering” limitation of amended Claim 1, that rejection is moot because of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant argues that the rejection for claims 5 and 15 do not disclose the “altering” limitation of amended Claim 1, that rejection is moot because of the new grounds for rejection introduced.
Applicant argues that the rejection for claims 10 and 20 do not disclose the “altering” limitation of amended Claim 1, that rejection is moot because of the new grounds for rejection introduced.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20230375307 (hereinafter referred to as Cox) in view of “Virtual Shadows in Mixed Reality Environment Using Flashlight-like Device” (hereinafter referred to as Naemura) in further view of “Real-time Illumination and Shadowing by Virtual Lights in a Mixed Reality Setting” (hereinafter referred to as Konttinen).
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses A method for receiving, at an optical sensor of an optical device [See paragraph 0032 which discusses a camera (optical sensor)], generating, by an image processor, a digital image of the scene from the received infrared radiation [see paragraph 0032 where the infrared light is processed into an electrical signal that can be displayed];
PNG
media_image4.png
183
1044
media_image4.png
Greyscale
identifying, by the image processor, an object of interest within the digital image of the scene [See paragraph 0032 above where the targets that generate electromagnetic radiation are identified] and displaying, on a display of the optical device, the digital image of the scene with the object of interest. [See paragraph 0007 where the image is displayed on an optical collar]
PNG
media_image5.png
125
1046
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Cox does not teach that a target object is adjusted to display perspective-based shadows created by a virtual fixed light source, using information from an onboard location sensor.
Naemura does teach altering, by the image processor, the object of interest by artificially creating light sources that dynamically change as the optical device changes direction [See section 3 of Naemura where a virtual flashlight is applied in reality, where the light will change as the device moves. See also Fig. 2 of Naemura where embodiment b. has both a camera and sensor, hence it is an optical device],
PNG
media_image6.png
566
341
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
270
675
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein artificially creating the light sources dynamically moves casted shadow on objects within the digital image of the scene, wherein the artificially created light sources that change as the optical device changes direction are configured to add dimensional perspective to the object of interest in the digital image [See section 4.2 and figure 1 of Naemura where the casted shadow on the object changes as the virtual light moves, The shadow is applied virtually for the target image indicating that dimensional perspective is added to the object].
PNG
media_image1.png
226
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
702
617
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein the light sources are artificially created using, in part, on-board positioning or location sensors; [see above Fig. 2 of Naemura where the light device can have 3D sensor that measures position].
Cox and Naemura do not teach that the light sources are fixed.
Konttinen does teach that the light sources are virtually fixed [See figure 7 of Konttinen where a virtual light can be applied to real world objects such as the box with a fixed light direction],
PNG
media_image3.png
263
341
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the optical device of Cox that receives IR radiation and identifies objects of interest with the ability to display perspective based shadows on a real world object of Naemura with the augmented reality that lights real objects based off of fixed virtual light sources of Konttinen. The motivation to combine would be to increase the visibility of an object of interest, while maintaining realistic shadows depending on how the viewer sees it through the optical device.
Regarding claim 22, Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen, teach the method of claim one, additionally Naemura teaches that that the on-board positioning or location sensors comprise at least one of a global positioning system (GPS) sensor, a gyroscope, a compass, or other positioning or location sensor [See Naemura Fig. 2 above where a 3D sensor is onboard the device], and wherein the light sources are artificially created based on positioning or location information provided by at least one on-board positioning or location sensor [See section 2. Virtual light of Naemura above where the virtual light is created based on the 3D sensor position].
Regarding claim 23, Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen, teach the method of claim one, additionally Naemura teaches that, the dimensional perspective is added to the object of interest based on the positioning or location information provided by the on-board positioning or location sensor [see Naemura Fig 1 above where the position of the virtual light based off of the position sensors adjusts the perspective of the shadow, hence adding “dimensional perspective”].
Claim 11 is similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Claim 24 is similarly analyzed to claim 22.
Claim 25 is similarly analyzed to claim 22.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Naemura, in view of Kontinnen, in further view of Buharin et al. US 20230316639 (hereinafter "Buharin", cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, Cox, Naemura, and Konttinen teach altering the object of interest to add dimensional perspective to the object of interest [See Fig. 1 of Naemura above], and adding a shading effect to the object of interest [See Fig. 1 of Naemura and Fig. 7 of Cox above].
Cox, Naemura and Konttinen do not explicitly teach varying the brightness level of the object of interest when adding the shading effect.
Buharin does teach varying the brightness of the object of interest to create a shading effect by generating a virtual shadow by adjusting the brightness to help aid in highlighting the depth of the subject [Paragraph 0114].
PNG
media_image8.png
132
1232
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Konttinen and Buharin to adjust the brightness of the target in the image as taught by Buharin. The motivation would therefore be "enhancing depth perception within the image" as discussed in the abstract of Buharin.
Claim 12 is similarly analyzed to claim 2.
Claims 3, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Naemura, in view of Kontinnen, in view of Buharin, in further view of the publication “Virtual out of Focus with Single Image to enhance 3D Perception” (hereinafter referred to as Han).
Regarding claim 3, Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen, and Buharin teach the method of claim 2, with Namura teaching adding a shadow adjacent to the object based on the positioning of the optical device [see Fig 1 above]. Additionally Buharin teaches generating a virtual shadow based on an interaction with virtual light beams, and changing the brightness of the image to add a shadow effect [See 0114 above]
The references do not explicitly teach identifying a region of interest adjacent to the target.
Han discloses finding the region of interest adjacent to the object of interest, which in this case is the region behind the subject, and darkening it, which enhances the brightness of the subject [See Section 4: Experimental Results paragraph 2 below and fig. 7].
PNG
media_image9.png
115
997
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
477
1100
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen, Buharin and Han to darken the background as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be to make "the 3D perception enhanced" for the image in focus [see Section 4: Experimental Results paragraph 2 above].
Claim 13 is similarly analyzed to claim 3.
Claims 4, 6-9 and 14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Naemura, in view of Kontinnen, in further view of Han.
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen disclose the invention of claim 1. They not explicitly disclose identifying a second object of interest from the digital image of the scene, and determining that the second object of interest is behind the first object of interest and altering the second object to add dimensional perspective to the object of interest based on the second object of interest behind the first object, and displaying the second object on the display. But it is well known that a second object behind the first object can be a distraction from the first object, therefore altering the second object can more clearly display the depth of the first object as taught by Han.
Han discloses a method where secondary objects of interest are identified to be behind the first object of interest and a blur is applied to simulate the depth, however the object still remains in the picture and is therefore still displayed (see fig. 8 of Han).
PNG
media_image11.png
761
467
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen and Han to alter a secondary object in order simulate depth as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be to "to provide a 3D perception" for the image (See conclusion paragraph of Han).
Claim 14 is similarly examined to Claim 4
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen discloses the invention of claim. They do not explicitly disclose performing dynamic focus adjustment on the second object of interest to add a blur to the second object of interest, where the blur creates a perception that the second object of interest is out of focus. But it is well known that adding a blur to an image makes it appear out of focus, and can aid in simulating depth as taught by Han. Han discloses where secondary objects of interest are identified to be behind the first object of interest and a blur is applied to simulate the depth, however the object still remains in the picture (see fig. 8 above).
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen, and Han to add a blur to a secondary object in order simulate depth as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be "to provide a 3D perception" for the image (See conclusion paragraph of Han).
Claim 16 is similarly examined to Claim 6
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above Cox Naemura, and Kontinnen discloses the invention of claim 1. They do not explicitly disclose increasing the relative brightness of the first object of interest relative to the brightness of the second object of interest. However, it is known that increasing the brightness of an object of interest compared to other objects makes the object of interest more easily visible and makes it appear closer to the viewer as taught by Han.
Han teaches that Illumination compensation can be used on the object of interest based on its surroundings in order to make the object of interest appear clearer and therefore closer to the viewer (see Section 5: Conclusion paragraph 2 below and fig. 8 above)
PNG
media_image12.png
201
437
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen and Han to brighten the object of interest based on the surrounding area as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be "to provide a 3D perception" for the image (See conclusion paragraph of Han).
Claim 17 is similarly examined to Claim 7
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen do not explicitly disclose identifying a background and blurring the background of the scene to enhance the object of interest. However, it is known that adding a blur to the background can make the unblurred regions, in this case the object of interest, appear more in focus, as taught by Han.
Han teaches that the background can be blurred to take away focus from it, and therefore put more focus on the object of interest (see Section 5: Conclusion paragraph 2 and fig. 7 above)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen and Han to blur the background as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be so that "It keeps the subject in a sharp focus" (See last line of Experimental Results, paragraph one, of Han).
Claim 18 is similarly examined to Claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen disclose the invention of claim 1. They do not explicitly disclose enhancing the focus of the object of interest. However, it would be obvious to enhance the focus object of interest as taught in Han.
Han discloses using depth mapping in order to enhance the focus of the subject (See fig. 7 and Section 3: 3D Perception Enhancement, paragraph 3 below)
PNG
media_image13.png
148
444
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen, and Han to enhance the object of interest as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be so that it "It keeps the subject in a sharp focus" (See last line of Experimental Results, paragraph one, of Han).
Claim 19 is similarly examined to Claim 9
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Han, and further in view of Lee, US 20180100721.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen disclose the invention of claim 1 and Han discloses the invention of claim 4. The references do not explicitly disclose accentuating a boundary between the first object of interest and the second object of interest using edge detection. However, it is known that edge enhancement is a commonly used procedure used to differentiate a subject from its surroundings.
Lee discloses using a high pass filter for edge enhancement to boost the pixel data for its thermal rifle scope (see paragraph 0054 of Lee).
PNG
media_image14.png
310
1121
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen, Han and Lee to enhance the edges of the object of interest as taught in Lee. The motivation would therefore be to involve "adjusting for artifacts and correcting for degradations in image quality" (See paragraph 0039 of Lee).
Claim 15 is similarly examined to Claim 5
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen in view of Chen US 20210034901.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above Cox, Naemura, and Kontinnen disclose the invention of claim 1. They do not disclose identifying the background of a scene or isolating the background and flatting the background to enhance the object of interest. However, it is known that creating a mask of the background can aid in differentiating the object of interest, therefore it can be used to enhance the object of interest.
Chen discloses isolating moving targets using an IR image, and flattens the background to increase the contrast between the target and the surroundings (see figure 5 of Chen).
PNG
media_image15.png
463
580
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Naemura, Kontinnen, and Chen to flatten the background to isolate the object of interest. The motivation would therefore be to "correct detection and segmentation of the moving object" (See paragraph 0003 of Chen).
Claim 20 is similarly examined to Claim 10.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 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.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
