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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 12-25, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(A)(1) as being anticipated by Rosenfeld et al. (US 2009/0278913 A1).
As to claim 1, Rosenfeld discloses a system [10 on FIG. 1] for video conferencing and collaborative communication comprising:
a transparent display screen [Screen 12 on FIG. 1, “The screen is in a transparent state.” Paragraph 0012],
a projector [Projector 16 on FIG. 1] disposed on a front side or rear side of the display screen [“The projector is disposed behind the screen. The examiner chooses rear side because of a simple or.” FIG.1 and Paragraph 0019],
a camera [Camera 14 on FIG. 1] disposed on a rear side of the display screen [“The camera is positioned behind the screen.” Paragraph 0004], and
a controller [Sync system 20 on FIG. 1] that synchronizes light projected by the projector with a sensor of the camera [“ The sync system controls of videoconferencing so that the various elements can cooperate with each other.” Paragraphs 0016 and 0020].
As to claim 2, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the sensor of the camera is a rolling shutter [Shutter 52, on FIG. 1] configured to open and capture one scan line of the light projected by the projector [“The camera sensor is relatively dark color and placed in front of similarity dark background, rolling from dark to light” Paragraphs 0016 and 0029].
As to claim 3, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the light projected by the projector refreshes at a rate of at least 70 Hz [“The light frequency may vary at 50 Hz or more.” Paragraph 0032].
As to claim 6, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the controller controls a frequency of the light projected by the projector and a frequency and a duration of an opening of the sensor of the camera [“The light frequency may vary at 50Hz or more.” Paragraph 0032].
As to claim 12, Rosenfeld discloses a system [10 on FIG. 1] for video conferencing and collaborative communication comprising:
a transparent display screen [Screen 12 on FIG. 1, “The screen is in a transparent state.” Paragraph 0012],
a projector [Projector 16 on FIG. 1] disposed on a rear side of the transparent display screen [“The projector is disposed behind the screen.” FIG.1 and Paragraph 0019],
a camera [Camera 14 on FIG. 1] disposed on the rear side of the transparent display screen [“The camera is positioned behind the screen.” Paragraph 0004].
a first polarized filter disposed between the transparent display screen and the projector [“The filter polarizes a display image between the projector and the screen.” Paragraph 0019],
a second polarized filter disposed between the camera and the transparent display screen, wherein the first polarized filter’s transmitting axis is perpendicular to the second polarized filter’s transmitting axis [“The camera is perpendicular to the viewing surface of the transparent screen and the second polarized filter.” Paragraphs 0015 and 0019].
As to claim 13, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the camera comprises a rolling shutter, an opening of which is synchronized with the projector [“The camera sensor is relatively dark color and placed in front of similarly dark background, rolling from dark to light.” Paragraphs 0016 and 0029].
As to claim 14, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the transparent display screen is a passive material [“The rotating disc with opaque and clear portion material.” Paragraph 0029].
As to claim 15, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 12, wherein the transparent display screen has a transparency of at least 25% [“The duty cycle of approximately 50% substantially transparent.” Paragraph 0023].
As to claim 16, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the rolling shutter is operated to permit the camera to capture images at a rate of at least 70 frames per second [“The light frequency may vary at 50 Hz or more.” Paragraph 0032].
As to claim 17, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 13, wherein the projector is configured to project light comprising a progressive scan with one or more black lines synchronized with a corresponding position of the rolling shutter.
As to claim 18, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 17, further comprising a processor configured to apply a filter, in a frequency domain, to a Y-channel of an image captured by the camera during insertion of the one or more black lines.
As to claim 19, Rosenfeld discloses a system [10 on FIG. 1] for video conferencing and collaborative communication comprising:
a transparent display screen [Screen 12 on FIG. 1][“The screen is in a transparent state.” Paragraph 0019],
a projector [ Projector 16 on FIG. 1]disposed on a back side or a rear side of the transparent display screen [“The projector is disposed behind the screen. The examiner chooses rear side because of a simple or.” FIG.1 and Paragraph 0019],
a camera [ Camera 14 on FIG. 1]disposed on the rear side of the transparent display screen [“The camera is positioned behind the screen.” Paragraph 0004],
a first polarized filter disposed between the projector and the transparent display screen [“The filter polarizes a display image between the projector and the screen.” Paragraph 0019], and
a second polarized filter disposed between the camera and the transparent display screen, wherein the first polarized filter’s transmitting axis is perpendicular to the second polarized filter’s transmitting axis [“The camera is perpendicular to the viewing surface of the transparent screen and the second polarized filter.” Paragraphs 0015 and 0019].
As to claim 20, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the camera comprises a rolling shutter, an opening of which is synchronized with the projector [“The camera sensor is relatively dark color and placed in front of similarly dark background, rolling from dark to light.” Paragraphs 0016 and 0029].
As to claim 21, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the transparent display screen is a passive material [“The rotating disc with opaque and clear portion material.” Paragraph 0029].
As to claim 22, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 19, wherein the transparent display screen has a transparency of at least 25% [“The duty cycle of approximately 50% substantially transparent.” Paragraph 0023].
As to claim 23, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 20, wherein the rolling shutter is operated to permit the camera to capture images at a rate of at least 70 frames per second [“The light frequency may vary at 50 Hz or more.” Paragraph 0032].
As to claim 24, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 20, wherein the projector is configured to project light comprising a progressive scan with one or more black lines synchronized with a corresponding position of the rolling shutter.
As to claim 25, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 24, further comprising a processor configured to apply a filter, in a frequency domain, to a Y-channel of an image captured by the camera during insertion of the one or more black lines.
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) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0257004 A1).
As to claim 4, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 2, but fails to disclose a black frame inserted every 14ms.
However, Smith et al. (US 2012/0257004 A1) teaches wherein the light projected by the projector comprises a black frame inserted every 14ms or less [“The response time for a frame is 2-4 ms.” Paragraph 0028].
Rosenfeld and Smith are analogous because they are all directed to image displaying management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Rosenfeld reference with the teaching of Smith, so that the response time frame would include the open and close time of the screen of Rosenfeld, would have been combined into a response time in milliseconds, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the time for the transparent screen state of the display, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 5, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 4, but fails to disclose a black frame inserted every 14ms.
However, Smith teaches wherein the sensor of the camera is opened every 14ms or more in synchronization with the black frame inserted every 14ms or less [“The response time for a frame is 2-4 ms.” Paragraph 0028].
Rosenfeld and Smith are analogous because they are all directed to image displaying management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Rosenfeld reference with the teaching of Smith, so that the response time frame would include the open and close time of the screen of Rosenfeld, would have been combined into a response time in milliseconds, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the time for the transparent screen state of the display, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld in view of Hong et al. (US 2012/0140017 A1).
As to claim 7, Rosenfeld discloses a system [10 on FIG. 1] for video conferencing and collaborative communication comprising:
a transparent display screen [Screen 12 on FIG. 1, “The screen is in a transparent state.” Paragraph 0012],
a projector [Projector 16 on FIG. 1] disposed on a rear side of the display screen [“The projector is disposed behind the screen.” FIG.1 and Paragraph 0019],
a camera [Camera 14 on FIG. 1] display on the rear side of the display screen [“The camera is positioned behind the screen.” Paragraph 0004], and
a controller [Sync system 20 on FIG. 1].
Rosenfeld fails to disclose the projector’s black line insertion with a sensor of the camera.
However, Hong teaches synchronizing the projector’s black line insertion with a sensor of the camera [“Provides a synchronization function between the projector an the camera in order to prevent the video from the projector from being reflected on the camera causing a projector’s black line.” Paragraph 0039].
Rosenfeld and Hong are analogous because they are all directed to image displaying management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Rosenfeld reference with the teaching of Hong, so that the projector line would synchronize with the camera rolling shutter of Rosenfeld, would have been combined into a center position of the camera, for the obvious purpose of preventing the video from the projector from being reflected on the camera, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 8, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the sensor is a rolling shutter [Shutter 52, on FIG. 1] configured to open and capture one scan line of the light projected by the projector [“The camera sensor is relatively dark color and placed in front of similarity dark background, rolling from dark to light” Paragraphs 0016 and 0029].
As to claim 11, Rosenfeld discloses the system of claim 7, wherein the controller controls a frequency of the light projected by the projector and a frequency and a duration of an opening of the sensor of the camera [“The light frequency may vary at 50Hz or more.” Paragraph 0032].
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosenfeld and Hong as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2012/0257004 A1).
As to claim 9, Rosenfeld and Hong disclose the system of claim 7, but fails to disclose a black frame inserted every 14ms.
However, Smith teaches wherein the light projected by the projector comprises a black frame inserted every 14ms or less [“The response time for a frame is 2-4 ms.” Paragraph 0028].
Rosenfeld, Hong and Smith are analogous because they are all directed to image displaying management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Rosenfeld and Hong reference with the teaching of Smith, so that the response time frame would include the open and close time of the screen of Rosenfeld and Hong, would have been combined into a response time in milliseconds, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the time for the transparent screen state of the display, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
As to claim 10, Rosenfeld and Hong discloses the system of claim 9, but fails to disclose a black frame inserted every 14ms.
However, Smith teaches wherein the sensor of the camera is opened every 14ms or more in synchronization with the black frame inserted every 14ms or less [“The response time for a frame is 2-4 ms.” Paragraph 0028].
Rosenfeld, Hong and Smith are analogous because they are all directed to image displaying management system. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found obvious to modify Rosenfeld and Hong reference with the teaching of Smith, so that the response time frame would include the open and close time of the screen of Rosenfeld and Hong, would have been combined into a response time in milliseconds, for the obvious purpose of providing the user the time for the transparent screen state of the display, by combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
Yarosh et al. (US 2014/0313277 A1) discloses a system and method for providing separate communication zones in a large format videoconference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GERALD GAUTHIER whose telephone number is (571)272-7539. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
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, CAROLYN R EDWARDS can be reached at (571) 270-7136. 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.
/GERALD GAUTHIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
November 25, 2025
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692