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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in spec [0131]
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “fixed pin object” in claim 16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 14 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, for claim 1, Ho teaches A mobile information terminal for displaying a display object, comprising:
a display; and (column 3, lines 26-27; “In one embodiment, controller 350 connects to a camera 330 and a display 380.”)
a processor configured to carry out display control of the display, (column 7, lines 3-6; “In one embodiment, computing device 510 includes a processor module 511, an output module 515, an input module 517, and a storage module 519.”)
calculate coordinates on which the display object is to be displayed, using, as a coordinate system for displaying the display object, (column 9 lines 56-64; “In one embodiment, controller 350 obtains AR position 414 AR(x,y,z) and maps AR(x,y,z) to display position 464 Display(x,y). AR(x,y,z) indicates a coordinate position (x,y,z) in AR coordinate system 490. We will refer occasionally the position AR(x,y,z) as (AR-x, AR-y, AR-z) in AR coordinate system 490. Display(x,y) indicates a coordinate position (x,y) in display coordinate system 480. We will refer the position Display(x,y) as (Display-x, Display-y) in display coordinate system 480.”) a local coordinate system that is fixed to the mobile information terminal and (column 5, line 67 and column 6, lines 1-8; “In one embodiment, AR coordinate system 490 is the space within which image 431 resides as seen by camera 330, or as seen by user 101 while viewing image 431. In one embodiment, the z-axis of AR coordinate system 490 is a depth axis, where points along the z-axis represents the distance or depth from camera 330 or user 101. In one embodiment, the x-axis of AR coordinate system 490 is a horizontal axis, where points long the x-axis represents a horizontal line seen from camera 330 or user 101, and the y-axis of AR coordinate system 490 is a vertical axis, where points along the y-axis represents a vertical line seen from user 101 or camera 330.”)
However, Ho fails to teach a non-local coordinate system that is not fixed to the mobile information terminal; and
upon displaying an enlarged area display object, which is an object relating to the display object that is being displayed on the local coordinate system and requires, for displaying thereof, an enlarged area extending beyond a display area within the display, place the enlarged area display object on the non-local coordinate system.
Hill teaches a non-local coordinate system that is not fixed to the mobile information terminal; and (spec [0069]; “The patch data is used, along with measurements made at electrode 30, to determine a relative location of electrode 30 in what may be termed a patient-based coordinate system or patient reference frame 6.”, the reference frame can be on the patient’s chest and not a mobile information terminal)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ho’s apparatus with Hill’s chest reference frame to allow placing a large number of objects in a virtual world.
However, Ho in view of Hill fails to teach upon displaying an enlarged area display object, which is an object relating to the display object that is being displayed on the local coordinate system and requires, for displaying thereof, an enlarged area extending beyond a display area within the display, place the enlarged area display object on the non-local coordinate system.
Araki teaches upon displaying an enlarged area display object, which is an object relating to the display object that is being displayed on the local coordinate system and requires, for displaying thereof, an enlarged area extending beyond a display area within the display, (spec [0064]; “determining an object direction of an object in the content item when the object is present outside the display area of the display unit;”) place the enlarged area display object on the non-local coordinate system. (spec [0092] and fig 3A; “in FIG. 3A, the outline of a direction determination is described using an O-XY coordinate system in which an o-xy coordinate system presenting touch positions P1 and P2 and a coordinate system (not shown) presenting two-dimensional positions on a content item 13 are integrated. The following shows the relationship between the xy coordinates on the two-dimensional plane having o as its origin at the upper left end of the display unit 110 with respect to the page space. The x axis is defined along the long side (longer axis direction) of the display unit 110 and is parallel to the X axis of the integrated coordinate system. In addition, the y axis is defined along the short side (shorter axis direction) of the display unit 110 and is parallel to the Y axis of the integrated coordinate system.” and “In the example of FIG. 3A, the coordinate values (X.sup.O(t), Y.sup.O(t)) of the object 4 and the R.sub.T, R.sub.B, R.sub.L, and R.sub.R are compared with each other, resulting in a determination that the object 4 is present in the direction which is above the upper end R.sub.T of the display unit 110 and which is to the right of the right end R.sub.R of the display unit 110 with respect to the page space.”, X.sup.O(t) and Y.sup.O(t) are coordinates of the display object on a fixed non-local O-XY coordinate system and not the local o-xy system)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Ho’s apparatus with Araki’s coordinate system relationship and then replacing Araki’s O-XY coordinate system with Hill’s chest reference frame for determining if something is outside the display area in order to allow placing a large number of objects in a virtual world.
For claim 18, it recites claim 1 in method form, and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein the processor is
configured to:
when the object relating to the display object can be fully displayed in the display area within the display, display the object relating to the display object in the display area with being placed as it is on the local coordinate system, and (Araki; spec [0114]; “In the case of FIG. 3C, both the X.sup.O(t) and Y.sup.O(t) are within the range, and thus it is determined that the object 4 is displayed within the display area of the display unit 110. In this case, the vibration on the panel 101 may be stopped, or the vibration may be continuously presented to show the first touch position having the smallest distance from the object 4.”, X.sup.O(t) and Y.sup.O(t) are coordinates for an object and can be reconfigured to place the display object in the local coordinate system instead of using a vibration)
only when the object relating to the display object is to extend beyond the display area, place the object relating to the display object on the non-local coordinate system as the enlarged area display object. (Araki; spec [0113]; “When at least one of the coordinate values X.sup.O(t) and Y.sup.O(t) is outside the range, RL, RR, RT, and RB which yield the smallest distance are selected in relation to the coordinate values of the object outside the range.”, this can be reconfigured to place the display object on the non-local coordinate system)
Regarding claim 3, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the object relating to the display object is an enlarged object obtained by simply enlargement of the display object. (Ho; column 4, lines 16-20; “Placement of display object image 462 into AR image 438 results in a scaled display of object 410 with a size relative to a recognizable object in image 431 and at about the same distance away from user 101 as the recognized object in image 431.”)
Regarding claim 11, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the non-local coordinate system is a chest coordinate system configured with a coordinate system that is fixed to a chest of a user of the mobile information terminal. (Hill; spec [0069]; “The patch data is used, along with measurements made at electrode 30, to determine a relative location of electrode 30 in what may be termed a patient-based coordinate system or patient reference frame 6.”, the reference frame can be on the patient’s chest)
Regarding claim 14, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the mobile information terminal is a smartphone or a tablet terminal, and (Ho; column 4, lines 30-35; “In one embodiment controller 350 includes a computing device housed in a smartphone, a head-mounted device (HMD), a glass frame, a goggle, a binocular, a magnifying glass, a helmet, a pen, a dress pin, a headset, a wearable device, a watch, a belt, a mobile computing device, a portable device, or a device user 101 carries conveniently”)
the non-local coordinate system is a plane-fixed nonlocal coordinate system configured with a two-dimensional coordinate system in which a screen of a flat display mounted on the smartphone or the tablet terminal is extended. (Ho; column 6, lines 20-30; “In one embodiment, display coordinate system 480 is a coordinate system for display 380. A position in display coordinate system 480 corresponds to a point or pixel displayable on display 380. In one embodiment, the x-axis of display coordinate system 480 is a horizontal axis. The x-axis can be a line at the bottom, the top, or parallel to the bottom or the top line of display 380. In one embodiment, the y-axis of display coordinate system 480 is a vertical axis. The y-axis can be a line at the left most, the right most, or a line parallel to the left most or the right most line of display 380.”)
Regarding claim 17, Ho in view of Hill and Araki The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein the processor accepts a user instruction for forcibly placing the object relating to the display object on the non-local coordinate system. (Ho; column 11, line 67 and column 12, line 1; “Controller 350 places display object 460 at display position 464.”)
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Ichikawa, et al. (US 20140362258 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach the object relating to the display object is an enlarged object obtained by simple enlargement of a partial area of the display area within the display.
Ichikawa teaches the object relating to the display object is an enlarged object obtained by simple enlargement of a partial area of the display area within the display. (spec [0065]; “The image resize unit 162A performs a resize process of enlarging an image size of a partial area of an image area of image data by using one position in the partial area as a center.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Ichikawa’s image resize unit in order to allow zooming in on the object to get finer details.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Stuart (US 20090158217 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach the display object is a menu object in which a menu is displayed, and
the object relating to the display object is a sub-menu in which details about one of items of the menu object are indicated.
Stuart teaches the display object is a menu object in which a menu is displayed, and (spec [0024] and fig 3; “According to principles of the present invention, the menu/submenus are displayed in a manner to represent the hierarchical layers of the on-screen display system and give users a mental map of where they are within the menu system.”)
the object relating to the display object is a sub-menu in which details about one of items of the menu object are indicated. (spec [0024]; “According to principles of the present invention, the menu/submenus are displayed in a manner to represent the hierarchical layers of the on-screen display system and give users a mental map of where they are within the menu system.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Stuart’s menus and submenus in order to make a more user-friendly user interface.
Regarding claim 6, Ho in view of Hill and Araki in further view of Stuart teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 5, wherein
upon displaying the sub-menu, the processor places a title object indicating a content of the sub-menu on the local coordinate system to display the title object in the display area within the display. (Stuart; spec [0027]; “According to an exemplary embodiment, each of these subtitles 30 is associated with a different one of a plurality of submenus of the on-screen menu system.”)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1), Araki (US 20140176455 A1) and Stuart (US 20090158217 A1) as applied to claim(s) 5 above, and further in view of Maikeru, et al. (JP H0962476 A).
Regarding claim 7, Ho in view of Hill, Araki and Stuart teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 5, wherein
the processor is configured to:
However, Ho in view of Hill, Araki and Stuart fails to teach when a display range of the sub-menu in the display area within the display is equal to or smaller than a remaining area generated by cutting out a portion of the sub-menu, place the remaining area on the local coordinate system to display the remaining area in the display area within the display, and
when the display range of the sub-menu included in the display area within the display is larger than the remaining area, place the sub-menu on the non- local coordinate system without generating the remaining area.
Maikeru teaches when a display range of the sub-menu in the display area within the display is equal to or smaller than a remaining area generated by cutting out a portion of the sub-menu, place the remaining area on the local coordinate system to display the remaining area in the display area within the display, and (spec [0052]; “If not, the process determines whether the first window can move to the available space in the display area,”, this is checking if the predetermined minimum space (the display range) is smaller than the visible area (the remaining area) and the display area can be the local coordinate system)
when the display range of the sub-menu included in the display area within the display is larger than the remaining area, (spec [0052]; “if the visible space in the first window is less than or equal to the predetermined minimum space,”, this is checking if the predetermined minimum space (the display range) is larger or equal to than the visible area (the remaining area)) place the sub-menu on the non-local coordinate system without generating the remaining area. (specs [0052] and [0053]; “the display information is reconstructed into the minimum window space.”, the display information could be the submenu and the minimum window space could be replaced with the non-local system)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art take the apparatus of claim 5 and add Meikeru’s algorithm to ensure that the submenus display properly.
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Aratsu, et al. (US 10482661 B2) and Choi, et al. (US 10684678 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, further comprising a camera for capturing an image of an area where a user of the mobile information terminal can view, wherein (Ho; column 3, lines 26-27; “In one embodiment, controller 350 connects to a camera 330 and a display 380.”)
place the display object on the non-local coordinate system as the enlarged area display object; and (Ho; column 11, line 67 and column 12, line 1; “Controller 350 places display object 460 at display position 464.”)
place the enlarged area display object on local coordinate system again as the display object. (Ho; column 11, lines 53-54; “In one embodiment, object 410 is placed at an AR position 414.”)
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach the display is a transparent display, and
the processor is configured to:
upon determining, based on the image by the camera, that the display object overlaps a real object in an outside world which has been captured in the image by the camera, move the display object away from an area of the display area of the display, through which the real object in the outside world can be viewed transparently, and
when the real object in the outside world has not been captured in the image by the camera, place the enlarged area display object on local coordinate system again as the display object.
Aratsu teaches the display is a transparent display, and (Aratsu; column 3, lines 42-44; “The term, “a real object”, may refer to any objects which exist in the real world. The real object can be observed by a user through a transparent display device.”)
the processor is configured to:
when the real object in the outside world has not been captured in the image by the camera, place the enlarged area display object on local coordinate system again as the display object. (Aratsu; column 9, lines 29-35; “In decision 445, the system judges whether the selected object is an AR object or not. If the judgment is positive (decision 445 “YES” branch), the system proceeds to step 446. If the judgment is negative (decision 445 “NO” branch), the system proceeds to step 447.” and “In step 446, the system draws the AR object in the frame buffer in response that the selected object is an AR object.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Aratsu’s transparent area in order to prevent obstructing the view of important objects.
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki in further view of Aratsu fails to teach upon determining, based on the image by the camera, that the display object overlaps a real object in an outside world which has been captured in the image by the camera, move the display object away from an area of the display area of the display, through which the real object in the outside world can be viewed transparently, and
Choi teaches upon determining, based on the image by the camera, that the display object overlaps a real object in an outside world which has been captured in the image by the camera, move the display object away from an area of the display area of the display, through which the real object in the outside world can be viewed transparently, and (column 4, lines 66-67 and column 5, lines 1-3; “Next, the mixed reality environment generation module 302 properly moves the virtual object in x-axial and y-axial directions through the 3D mapping, so that the real object and the virtual object do not overlap with each other on the 3D coordinate.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Aratsu’s transparent area and replace Aratsu’s algorithm that prevents displaying virtual objects with Choi’s mixed reality environment generation module in order to prevent obstructing the view of important objects but still render virtual objects.
Regarding claim 9, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, further comprising a camera for capturing an image of an area where a user of the mobile information terminal can view, wherein (Ho; column 3, lines 26-27; “In one embodiment, controller 350 connects to a camera 330 and a display 380.”)
when the display object is to extend beyond the display area if moving the display object away from the restricted area, (spec [0064]; “determining an object direction of an object in the content item when the object is present outside the display area of the display unit;”) place the display object on the non-local coordinate system as the enlarged area display object. (spec [0092] and fig 3A; “in FIG. 3A, the outline of a direction determination is described using an O-XY coordinate system in which an o-xy coordinate system presenting touch positions P1 and P2 and a coordinate system (not shown) presenting two-dimensional positions on a content item 13 are integrated. The following shows the relationship between the xy coordinates on the two-dimensional plane having o as its origin at the upper left end of the display unit 110 with respect to the page space. The x axis is defined along the long side (longer axis direction) of the display unit 110 and is parallel to the X axis of the integrated coordinate system. In addition, the y axis is defined along the short side (shorter axis direction) of the display unit 110 and is parallel to the Y axis of the integrated coordinate system.” and “In the example of FIG. 3A, the coordinate values (X.sup.O(t), Y.sup.O(t)) of the object 4 and the R.sub.T, R.sub.B, R.sub.L, and R.sub.R are compared with each other, resulting in a determination that the object 4 is present in the direction which is above the upper end R.sub.T of the display unit 110 and which is to the right of the right end R.sub.R of the display unit 110 with respect to the page space.”, X.sup.O(t) and Y.sup.O(t) are coordinates of the display object on the non-local (but fixed) O-XY coordinate system and not the local o-xy system)
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach the display is a transparent display, and
the processor is configured to, in the display area within the display, provide a restricted area in which the display object is prevented from being displayed,
Aratsu teaches the display is a transparent display, and (Aratsu; column 3, lines 42-44; “The term, “a real object”, may refer to any objects which exist in the real world. The real object can be observed by a user through a transparent display device.”)
the processor is configured to, in the display area within the display, provide a restricted area in which the display object is prevented from being displayed, and (Aratsu; column 9, lines 18-21; “In decision 443, the system judges whether or not the location and shape of the selected object overlap with the whole or a part of the location and shape of the object(s) which was already drawn on the priority buffer.”, this can be reconfigured to place the display object on the non-local coordinate system)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Aratsu’s restricted area in order to prevent obstructing the view of important objects.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Yoshida (US 20070067089 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, further comprising a camera for capturing an image of an area where a user of the mobile information terminal can view, wherein (Ho; column 3, lines 26-27; “In one embodiment, controller 350 connects to a camera 330 and a display 380.”)
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach the display is a transparent display, and
the processor is configured to, in the display area within the display, provide a restricted area in which the display object is prevented from being displayed, and increase a rate of transparency of a portion of the enlarged area display object which overlaps the restricted area to place the enlarged area display object on the non-local coordinate system.
Yoshida teaches the display is a transparent display, and (spec [0007]; “the image display system for use of a driver in a subject vehicle includes a look area detector for detecting a look area of the driver who watches a real leading vehicle on a transparent glass in a front of the driver and a control unit for controlling display of a transparent image on the transparent glass in the front of the driver for representing a virtual leading vehicle.”)
the processor is configured to, in the display area within the display, provide a restricted area in which the display object is prevented from being displayed, and increase a rate of transparency of a portion of the enlarged area display object which overlaps the restricted area to place the enlarged area display object on the non-local coordinate system. (spec [0037]; “The image display system 1 displays the virtual leading vehicle image on the windshield in front of the driver, and increases the transparency of the virtual leading vehicle image for the portion that overlaps the real leading vehicle captured in the look area of the driver.”, the real leading vehicle is the restricted area)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Yoshida’s transparent glass and image display system in order to set transparency and allow seeing the more important objects.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Baele, et al. (EP 2615580 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach the non-local coordinate system is a direction-fixed nonlocal coordinate system that is different from a world coordinate system, in which a vertical direction of the non-local coordinate system is made correspond to a vertical direction of the real world.
Baele teaches the non-local coordinate system is a direction-fixed nonlocal coordinate system that is different from a world coordinate system, in which a vertical direction of the non-local coordinate system is made correspond to a vertical direction of the real world. (spec [0044]; “At least one axis of the virtual coordinate system may be aligned with a plane defined by two axes in the real coordinate system. Preferably, at least the vertical axis of the virtual coordinate system is aligned with the Z-Y plane, namely, the plane defined by the vertical axis and the depth axis, of the real world coordinate system by controlling a motorised system supporting the three-dimensional imaging system.”)
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Baele’s virtual coordinate system in order to use coordinate system that allows aligning virtual objects more easily.
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ho (US 10984599 B1) in view of Hill, et al. (US 20200138334 A1) and Araki (US 20140176455 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura, et al. (WO 2010109536 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, further comprising a camera, wherein (Ho; column 3, lines 26-27; “In one embodiment, controller 350 connects to a camera 330 and a display 380.”)
the processor is configured to:
recognize a gesture action using a hand of a user based on an image by the camera to accept an input operation; and (Ho; column 7, lines 21-27; “In one embodiment, input module 517 includes or connects to one or more sensors such as a camera sensor, an optical sensor, a night-vision sensor, an infrared (IR) sensor, a motion sensor, a direction sensor, a proximity sensor, a gesture sensor, or other sensors that is usable by a user to provide input to computing device 510.”, the gesture sensor can be used to detect the gesture of a user’s hand)
using the number of fingers of the hand of the user (Araki; spec [0137]; “each of positions double-tapped with two or three fingers may be registered as a destination associated with the number of touches,”) and a motion of the hand of the user, (Araki; spec [0140]; “As another conceivable variation of Embodiment 1, it is possible to guide one or more fingers to one or more buttons within a display area of a display screen, not only to an object present outside the display area.”)
for converting the display object into the enlarged area display object or reconverting the enlarged area display object into the display object. (Ho; column 12, lines 16-18; “In one embodiment, controller 350 converts object image 412 to display object image 462 by scaling object image 412 from real world dimensions 413 to display dimensions 463.”, controller could be configured to convert display objects into enlarged area display objects and vice versa)
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach accept an operation to specify a type of the non-local coordinate system and the input operation
Nakamura teaches accept an operation to specify a type of the non-local coordinate system and the input operation (spec [0012]; “The coordinate system selection unit 5 selects a coordinate system suitable for machining from a plurality of coordinate systems stored in advance in the coordinate system storage unit 6 as the second storage device,”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Nakamura’s coordinate system selection unit in order to allow the user to pick the most convenient coordinate system.
Regarding claim 16, Ho in view of Hill and Araki teaches The mobile information terminal according to claim 1, wherein
the processor is configured to:
by means of an operation of sticking a fixed pin object to the display object, (Ho; column 4, lines 30-35; “In one embodiment controller 350 includes a computing device housed in a smartphone, a head-mounted device (HMD), a glass frame, a goggle, a binocular, a magnifying glass, a helmet, a pen, a dress pin, a headset, a wearable device, a watch, a belt, a mobile computing device, a portable device, or a device user 101 carries conveniently”)
convert the display object to which the fixed pin object is stuck into the enlarged area display object and place the enlarged area display object on the non-local coordinate system of the type which has been specified. (Ho; column 12, lines 16-18; “In one embodiment, controller 350 converts object image 412 to display object image 462 by scaling object image 412 from real world dimensions 413 to display dimensions 463.”, controller could be configured to convert display objects into enlarged area display objects)
However, Ho in view of Hill and Araki fails to teach accept a specification of the display object displayed in the display area within the display and a specification of a type of the non-local coordinate system on which the display object is to be placed; and
Nakamura teaches accept a specification of the display object displayed in the display area within the display and a specification of a type of the non-local coordinate system on which the display object is to be placed; and (spec [0012]; “The coordinate system selection unit 5 selects a coordinate system suitable for machining from a plurality of coordinate systems stored in advance in the coordinate system storage unit 6 as the second storage device,”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Nakamura’s coordinate system selection unit in order to allow the user to pick the most convenient coordinate system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRVING SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
/IRVING NMN SHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights