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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/18/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim objections are withdrawn.
On Page 14 of Remarks, Applicant argues “The Office Action contends that recitation of "each obstacle" in claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Applicant respectfully traverses this assertion. In this regard, claims 2 and 14 recite "each obstacle within a viewing range," and claims 3 and 15 recites "each obstacle within the viewing range." Applicant submits that recitation of "each obstacle" in the claims is appropriate.”
The above referenced rejection is maintained. The recitation of “each obstacle” requires that these obstacles are introduced in the claim as a new element. Reciting “each obstacle” is similar to “the obstacle” in this regard. For example, “each obstacle of a plurality of obstacles” (or similar) would be more appropriate.
On Page 15 of Remarks, in the first three Paragraphs, Applicant provides arguments regarding rejections to claims 8, 9, and 20. The arguments are persuasive and the associated rejections are withdrawn.
In view of the amendments described by the Applicant on Pages 15-17 of Remarks, the following 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn: items 9, 10, 14, 16-18, 22 26, 28, and 35 under the 35 USC 112(b) section of the Non-Final Office Action. The remaining items under the 35 USC 112(b) section of the Non-Final Office Action are either fully or partially maintained, which will be discussed further under 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant's arguments regarding Prior Art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On Pages 17-19, Applicant argues that Li does not disclose amended claim 1 (and therefore independent claims 11 and 13). In particular, Applicant argues, “However, as discussed during the interview, while Li describes determining a visible area by subtracting an obstructed area from a projected area, Li does not disclose or suggest the features of determining the visible area by matching an avoidance mode from a plurality of avoidance modes with a preset strategy, where each avoidance modes is associated with a different preset obstacle avoidance strategy. That is, Li fails to disclose or suggest "determining, based on the visible region, a matched obstacle avoidance mode from a plurality of avoidance modes that matches a preset obstacle avoidance strategy, each avoidance mode being associated with a different preset obstacle avoidance strategy," and "displaying image content in accordance with the matched obstacle avoidance mode such that the image content is displayed in the visible region," as recited in claim 1.”
Firstly, note that the amended claim does not recite limitations that amount to “determining the visible area by matching an avoidance mode from a plurality of avoidance modes with a preset strategy, where each avoidance modes is associated with a different preset obstacle avoidance strategy”, as asserted above by the Applicant. Rather, the amended claim recites: determining a matched obstacle avoidance mode based on the visible region. Applicant’s argument above suggests that the amended claim recites the opposite (determining visible region based on the matched obstacle avoidance mode). Secondly, Li explicitly teaches the amended claim limitations of "determining, based on the visible region, a matched obstacle avoidance mode from a plurality of avoidance modes that matches a preset obstacle avoidance strategy, each avoidance mode being associated with a different preset obstacle avoidance strategy," and "displaying image content in accordance with the matched obstacle avoidance mode such that the image content is displayed in the visible region," as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Li determines, in Figures 17-18 and Paragraphs 95-100, based on the visible regions of several viewers, a matched obstacle avoidance mode (to display content in candidate sub-areas 8-10) from a plurality of avoidance modes (to display content on other sub-areas) that matches a preset obstacle avoidance strategy (the determination that candidate sub-areas 8-10 have a higher evaluation score than candidate sub-areas 7-9 and 9-11), then displaying image content accordingly (candidate sub-areas 8-10 are set as the “target area”, and the content is displayed in the target area as described by Figure 2 element S240).
On Pages 19-20, Applicant argues that Liu does not disclose amended claims 2 and 4, in particular: “The Office Action cites to Li at FIG. 14 for disclosing the recited "occlusion region." However, claims 2 and 14 as amended recites that an occlusion region is determined for each viewer from a plurality of viewers. Li does not disclose or suggest the features of determining an occlusion region for each viewer in a plurality of viewers. Therefore, for at least these additional reasons, Applicant submits that claims 2 and 14 are patentably distinguishable over the cited art.”
While Figure 14 shows an exemplary view of the occlusion region determination with respect to one viewer, Li is clear that the steps of the invention are performed for a plurality of viewers. Paragraph 15 recites, “In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a plurality of viewers exist; and evaluating the plurality of candidate sub-areas based on the visible area includes: determining, based on the visible area corresponding to each viewer of the plurality of viewers, a candidate sub-area corresponding to each viewer; determining, for each candidate sub-area, a number of instances of the candidate sub-area in candidate sub-areas corresponding to the plurality of viewers; and determining, based on the number of instances, the evaluation result of each candidate sub-area.” Figure 1 also shows the invention implemented for a plurality of viewers, and Figures 17-18 further demonstrate the application of the invention to a plurality of viewers.
The Applicant’s arguments on Page 20 regarding 35 US 103 rejections are moot in view of the above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-4, 6-10, 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 recite the limitation "each obstacle”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is being interpreted such that it is introduced as a new element in claims 2 and 13, on which claims 3 and 14 depend.
Claim 2, 4, 14, and 16 recite “each occlusion region”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This is being interpreted are referring to the previously recited, “a corresponding occlusion region”.
Claims 3-4 and 15-16 are further rejected as dependent on the above claims
Claims 4 and 16 recite, “a complete display region of the display screen”. This limitation is not described in the claim or sufficiently described in the Specification, and is therefore indefinite. It is being interpreted as any region of the display screen.
Claims 6 and 18, as amended, now recite two alternatives with overlapping conditions (“based on the visible region being smaller than a size of the display screen”). While the first alternative also includes ‘and there being a respective standby display device for the viewer’, any condition that triggers the first alternative would automatically also necessarily trigger the second alternative. This renders it unclear which alternative is triggered in the case that the conditions for both alternatives get satisfied. In context, it appears that the second alternative refers to a situation in which there is not a respective standby display device for the viewer. This interpretation is being used. Note that this amendment to claim 6 alters the scope of the claim and therefore the Leorin reference is no longer being relied on.
Claims 7 and 19 recite, “each primitive corresponding to display elements in the image content that are indivisible”. The bolded limitation is indefinite. Virtually any region on the screen is divisible. A group of two or more pixels could be divided into singular pixels. Even a pixel could be further divided, into quarters, for example. In view of the full disclosure, primitives are being defined as corresponding to any cluster of displayed pixels.
Claims 8-10 and 20 are further rejected as dependent on the above claims.
Claims 8 and 20 recite, “image content containing special primitives, each special primitive corresponding to interrelated display elements”. All regions of the screen inherently have ‘interrelated structural relationships’ to each other. For example, on element 1002 of Figure 10, the “We” is to the left of “Christmas”, and “Christmas” is to the right of “We”. Accordingly, ‘special primitives’ are being interpreted as any primitives, in view of the interpretation of ‘primitives’ outlined above.
Claims 9 and 10 are further rejected as dependent on the above claims.
Claim 9 recites “the picture”. While there is technically antecedent basis (claims 8 and 20 recite, “a combination of a text and a picture”), the limitation, “the picture”, appears to not be referring to this “a picture”. Rather, it appears to be in reference to the display screen. It is being interpreted accordingly.
Claim 9 recites “the each primitive in the picture”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. This limitation is being interpreted as a new element that refers each primitive that is displayed on the overall display.
Claim 9 recites, “obtaining information of the spacing” The underlined element lacks proper antecedence and should recite “obtaining the information of the spacing”.
Regarding claim 10, the Non-Final Office Action identified a plurality of examples of poor clarity. These were not sufficiently addressed, rendering the claim overall virtually impossible to fully understand. See items 30-34 on Pages 7-9 on the Non-Final Office Action filed 4/8/2026. Significant revisions are required.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11 and 13-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Li (US20240346965A1).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches “An obstacle avoidance playing method comprising: acquiring human eye position information of a viewer in a playing scene and three-dimensional data of an object in a respective viewing space region;” (Li, Figure 14 shows eye position and 3D data of an object in the viewing space region. Paragraphs 51 and 78 further elaborate, “The spatial position information of the viewer includes, for example, the spatial position of the viewer and the spatial position of certain specific features of the viewer, such as the spatial position of the viewer's head or eyes.”; “Step S1330, determining a second projected area of a vision obstruction on the display device, the vision obstruction being between the viewer and the display device. For example, similar to step S320 above, in this exemplary embodiment, an image of the vision obstruction and corresponding depth information thereof may be collected, and spatial position information of the vision obstruction in the three-dimensional spatial coordinate system may be determined based on the image of the vision obstruction and the corresponding depth information thereof. Further, a second projected area SZ of the vision obstruction 500 on the display device 100 is calculated using the equivalent viewpoint of the viewer as a virtual point light source.”)
“determining a visible region of a display screen based on the human eye position information, the three-dimensional data of the object, and size and position information of the display screen, the visible region corresponding to a portion of the display screen that is unobstructed to the viewer;” (Li, Figure 14 shows the unobstructed visible region (region of SQ minus SZ) corresponding to a portion of the display screen (100). As shown in the Figure, this is determined based on human eye (A) position, 3D spatial position information of occluding object 500, and the size and position of display screen 100 to which the field of view is directed. Figure 13 further lays out these steps, wherein the “visible area corresponding to the viewer” is determined.)
“determining, based on the visible region, a matched obstacle avoidance mode from a plurality of avoidance modes that matches a preset obstacle avoidance strategy, each avoidance mode being associated with a different preset obstacle avoidance strategy;” (Li, Figures 17-18 and Paragraphs 95-100 describe determining, based on the visible regions of several viewers, a matched obstacle avoidance mode (to display content in candidate sub-areas 8-10) from a plurality of avoidance modes (to display content on other sub-areas) that matches a preset obstacle avoidance strategy (the determination that candidate sub-areas 8-10 have a higher evaluation score than candidate sub-areas 7-9 and 9-11). Each avoidance mode (to display content in a respective sub-area) is associated with a different preset obstacle avoidance strategy (the determination that the respective sub-area receives a higher evaluation score).)
“and displaying image content in accordance with the matched obstacle avoidance mode such that the image content is displayed in the visible region.” (Li, Paragraph 107, “The visible area determination module 1910 may be configured to determine, based on a viewing angle and spatial position information of a viewer, a visible area corresponding to the viewer in a display device; the first display area determination module 1920 may be configured to determine a writing area of a writer in the display device, and determine a display area in the display device, other than the writing area, as a candidate area; the second display area determination module 1930 may be configured to determine, based on the visible area, a target area in the candidate area for the viewer, the target area corresponding to the writing area; and the content display module 1940 may be configured to display, within the target area, written content in the writing area.” Note that the overall steps recited above amount to the obstacle avoidance strategy, and the displaying of the written content in the target area is mapped to the obstacle avoidance mode that is based on the visible region. Further note that the target area in which the content is displayed is determined based on the visible area, and the visible area is determined based on the obstacle, as described in the previous limitation.)
Regarding claim 2, Li teaches “The method according to claim 1,”
“wherein the determining the visible region of the display screen comprises: establishing a three-dimensional map of the playing scene based on the human eye position information, the three-dimensional data, and the size and position information of the display screen;” (Li, Figures 13-14, describe and illustrate the mapping of relative relationships between human eye position, object position (3D data), and the size and position of the display screen. Paragraph 56 further describes, “Step S310, acquiring a depth image of a scene, determining point cloud data of the scene based on the depth image, and creating a three-dimensional spatial coordinate system based on the point cloud data.”)
“determining, for each viewer from a plurality of viewers, a corresponding occlusion region in the display screen of each obstacle within a viewing range of the viewer based on the three-dimensional map; and determining the visible region of the display screen based on each occlusion region.” (Li, Figure 14 shows occlusion region SZ based on the 3D mapping, and visible region of the display screen (SQ – SZ). Paragraphs 78-79 further describe, “Step S1330, determining a second projected area of a vision obstruction on the display device, the vision obstruction being between the viewer and the display device. For example, similar to step S320 above, in this exemplary embodiment, an image of the vision obstruction and corresponding depth information thereof may be collected, and spatial position information of the vision obstruction in the three-dimensional spatial coordinate system may be determined based on the image of the vision obstruction and the corresponding depth information thereof. Further, a second projected area SZ of the vision obstruction 500 on the display device 100 is calculated using the equivalent viewpoint of the viewer as a virtual point light source. Step S1340, determining an area of the first projected area that does not overlap with the second projected area as the visible area corresponding to the viewer. For example, as shown in FIG. 14 , the visible area corresponding to the viewer is equal to the first projected area SQ—the second projected area SZ. However, in some exemplary embodiments, if the second projected area is not completely located in the first projected area, the visible area corresponding to the viewer is equal to the first projected area SQ—an area of overlap between the second projected area and the first projected area. This is not specifically limited in this exemplary embodiment.” Note that as explained in arguments above, Figures 1, 17 and 18 describe/illustrate the invention being applied for a plurality of viewers, and Paragraph 15 states “In an exemplary embodiment of the present disclosure, a plurality of viewers exist; and evaluating the plurality of candidate sub-areas based on the visible area includes: determining, based on the visible area corresponding to each viewer of the plurality of viewers, a candidate sub-area corresponding to each viewer; determining, for each candidate sub-area, a number of instances of the candidate sub-area in candidate sub-areas corresponding to the plurality of viewers; and determining, based on the number of instances, the evaluation result of each candidate sub-area.”)
Regarding claim 3, Li teaches “The method according to claim 2,”
“wherein the determining the corresponding occlusion region in the display screen of each obstacle within the viewing range of the viewer based on the three-dimensional map comprises: obtaining a visible cone range of the viewer based on the human eye position of the viewer in the three-dimensional map and the size and position information of the display screen;” (Li, Figure 14 shows the visible cone range, which is based on eye position in the 3D map and the size and position of the display screen 100.)
“and determining, as the corresponding occlusion region for each of the objects, whether the object has a point in the visible cone range based on reconstruction data of the object in the three-dimensional map, and based on determining that the object has the point in the visible cone range, calculating a display region which is not viewable by the viewer due to occlusion of the object. (Li, Figure 14 obstruction 500 in the visible cone range based on the 3D mapping, and calculating display region (SZ) not viewable to the viewer due to the occlusion.)
Regarding claim 4, Li teaches “The method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the visible region of the display screen comprises: removing each occlusion region from a complete display region of the display screen to obtain the visible region. (Li, Figure 14 and Paragraph 79, “Step S1340, determining an area of the first projected area that does not overlap with the second projected area as the visible area corresponding to the viewer. For example, as shown in FIG. 14 , the visible area corresponding to the viewer is equal to the first projected area SQ—the second projected area SZ. However, in some exemplary embodiments, if the second projected area is not completely located in the first projected area, the visible area corresponding to the viewer is equal to the first projected area SQ—an area of overlap between the second projected area and the first projected area. This is not specifically limited in this exemplary embodiment.”)
Regarding claim 5, Li teaches “The method according to claim 1, wherein the preset obstacle avoidance strategy comprises: based on the visible region being smaller than a size of the display screen, using a split-screen display mode to display the image content completely in a screen of a standby display device, or using an obstacle avoidance mode for adjusting a content layout to display the image content completely in the visible region. (Li, Paragraph 107, “The visible area determination module 1910 may be configured to determine, based on a viewing angle and spatial position information of a viewer, a visible area corresponding to the viewer in a display device; the first display area determination module 1920 may be configured to determine a writing area of a writer in the display device, and determine a display area in the display device, other than the writing area, as a candidate area; the second display area determination module 1930 may be configured to determine, based on the visible area, a target area in the candidate area for the viewer, the target area corresponding to the writing area; and the content display module 1940 may be configured to display, within the target area, written content in the writing area.” First, note that the bolded text is mapped to the underlined limitation. Second, note that the displaying of the written content in the target area takes place when the visible area is smaller than the overall display screen, as illustrated Figures 17-18.)
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches “The method according to claim 1,”
“wherein the preset obstacle avoidance strategy comprises: based on the visible region being smaller than a size of the display screen and there being a respective standby display device for the viewer, using a split-screen display obstacle avoidance mode to display the image content completely in a screen of the standby display device; or based on the visible region being smaller than the size of the display screen, using an obstacle avoidance mode for adjusting a content layout to display the image content completely in the visible region.” (Li, Paragraph 107, “The visible area determination module 1910 may be configured to determine, based on a viewing angle and spatial position information of a viewer, a visible area corresponding to the viewer in a display device; the first display area determination module 1920 may be configured to determine a writing area of a writer in the display device, and determine a display area in the display device, other than the writing area, as a candidate area; the second display area determination module 1930 may be configured to determine, based on the visible area, a target area in the candidate area for the viewer, the target area corresponding to the writing area; and the content display module 1940 may be configured to display, within the target area, written content in the writing area.” First, note that the bolded text is mapped to the alternative recited in the underlined limitation. Second, note that the displaying of the written content in the target area takes place when the visible area is smaller than the overall display screen, as illustrated Figures 17-18.)
Regarding claim 7, Li teaches “The method according to claim 5, wherein the obstacle avoidance mode for adjusting the content layout comprises: displaying primitives of the image content completely in the visible region by adjusting a layout of the primitives in the image content, each primitive corresponding to display elements in the image content that are indivisible.” (Li, Paragraph 107, “The visible area determination module 1910 may be configured to determine, based on a viewing angle and spatial position information of a viewer, a visible area corresponding to the viewer in a display device; the first display area determination module 1920 may be configured to determine a writing area of a writer in the display device, and determine a display area in the display device, other than the writing area, as a candidate area; the second display area determination module 1930 may be configured to determine, based on the visible area, a target area in the candidate area for the viewer, the target area corresponding to the writing area; and the content display module 1940 may be configured to display, within the target area, written content in the writing area.” Note that the written content being displayed in the target area amounts to the content layout adjustment of the primitive.)
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites an apparatus with circuitry with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claim. Li teaches an apparatus with circuitry (Li, Figure 20.)
Regarding claims 13-19, these claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions corresponding to the method recited in claims 1-7. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of these claims are mapped to the analogous steps in the corresponding method claims. Li teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions (Li, Paragraph 18, “According to an aspect of the present disclosure, there is provided a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium on which is stored a computer program that, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to implement the method provided in some aspects of the present disclosure.”) Note that while dependency relationships vary between analogous claims 13- 19 and 1-7, all limitations of claims 13-19 are fully embodied in claims 1-7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) and 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, and amended to overcome 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claims 8 and 20, in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 8 (and similarly claim 20) recites, “The method according to claim 7, wherein the obstacle avoidance mode for adjusting the content layout comprises: identifying a type of the image content, wherein the type of the image content comprises a plain text, a plain picture, a combination of a text and a picture, and a special type, wherein the special type is image content containing special primitives, each special primitive corresponding to interrelated display elements; acquiring display attribute information of each primitive in the image content according to the identified type of the image content, the display attribute information comprising: size and position coordinate information of the each primitive in the image content and information of spacing with a neighboring primitive and an arrangement direction; searching, as an occluded primitive, a primitive which is not completely displayed in the visible region based on the display attribute information of the primitives; and adjusting the content layout of the primitives in the image content based on the type of the image content, the display attribute information of the primitives, and a type of the occluded primitive, according to a preset rearrangement strategy, to display the occluded primitive completely in the visible region.”)
Li teaches a method for adjusting the display of content on a display screen so that occluding objects to not obstruct the viewer’s ability to view the content. Leorin discloses methods to manipulate the presentation of visual content on a display or between displays in the event that a viewer’s view of the content is obstructed. Rakshit (US20200111394A1) teaches a method to overcome an obstructed view of a display screen by projecting the obstructed region of the display screen directly onto the obstructing object. However, none of these references expressly disclose the bolded limitations above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights