DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 3-4, Applicant argues that,
“[…]
Claim 16 has been amended to include the limitations of “processing the first image based on the first offset to obtain a third image, and based on a second translation amount, processing the second image to obtain a fourth image, wherein the first display module displays the third image and the second display module displays the fourth image” Support for the newly-added features is provided in the specification at, for example, paras. [00119] and [00212]-[00218].”
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that the specification does not support a combination of following limitations:
processing the three-dimensional image data into a first image based on the first coordinate conversion matrix and the first offset, and displaying, by the first display module, the first image; and
processing the three-dimensional image data into a second image based on the second coordinate conversion matrix and the second offset, and displaying, by the second display module, the second image,
processing the first image based on the first offset to obtain a third image, and based on a second translation amount, processing the second image to obtain a fourth image, wherein the first display module displays the third image, and the second display module displays the fourth image.
Such a combination of limitations requires duplicate processing of the three-dimensional image data. Specifically, (1) requires processing the three-image data into the first image based on the first coordinate conversion matrix and the first offset, then displaying the first image, then (3) processes that first image again using the first offset to obtain and display the obtained third image. The originally filed specification does not support this.
Applicant asserted that paragraphs [0119] and [0212]-[0218] supports the features. However, paragraphs [0119] and [0212]-[0218], Fig. 11, and Fig. 14 describe two embodiments. Neither or which supports a third image being generated based on the first offset from a first image that has been processed and displayed based on both the first coordinate conversion matrix and the same first offset. Specifically, the embodiment of Fig. 11 clearly shows that a first image is generated based only on first coordinate conversion matrix and not displayed (because it is not fully corrected yet), the first image is then further processed based only on the first offset, then displayed as the third image. In the embodiment illustrated in Fig. 14, the first image is generated directly based on a third coordinate system conversion matrix which is calculated from the first conversion matrix and the first offset, then displayed. There is no third image.
Similarly, processing of the second image and the fourth image recited in the claim does not have support either for the same reason discussed above.
On page 4, Applicant argues that,
“Peuhkurinen was applied for its disclosure of a display method providing for the obtaining of three-dimensional image data from first and second input images. Office Action, pp. 12-13. A processor applies first and second transformations to generate first and second distortion-corrected image frames. Peuhkurinen, Abstract. The process is depicted in the flow chart appearing in Fig. 7 as follows:
[…]
As is evident from the foregoing, neither Fig. 7, nor any other aspect of Peuhkurinen, discloses or even suggests the feature of claim 16 providing for “processing the first image based on the first offset to obtain a third image, and based on a second translation amount, processing the second image to obtain a fourth image”, as Peuhkurinen does not disclose or suggest any aspect of generating a third or fourth image, let alone doing so “wherein the first display module displays the third image and the second display module displays the fourth image”. For at least the foregoing reason, claim 16 is allowable over Peuhkurinen, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection based thereon should be withdrawn.”
In response, Examiner respectfully submits that these arguments are moot since the limitations are not supported by the originally filed specification as discussed above.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites, “processing the three-dimensional image data into a first image based on the first coordinate conversion matrix and the first offset, and displaying, by the first display module, the first image; processing the three-dimensional image data into a second image based on the second coordinate conversion matrix and the second offset, and displaying, by the second display module, the second image; and processing the first image based on the first offset to obtain a third image, and based on a second translation amount, processing the second image to obtain a fourth image, wherein the first display module displays the third image, and the second display module displays the fourth image,” which are limitations not supported by the originally filed specification (also see “Response to Arguments” above).
The claim is therefore failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 depends on claim 16 thus inheriting the rejected feature and is rejected accordingly.
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.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peuhkurinen et al. (US 2021/0160468 A1 – hereinafter Peuhkurinen) and Takizawa et al. (US 2018/0247392 A1 – hereinafter Takizawa).
Regarding claim 16, Peuhkurinen discloses a display method, applied to an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises a first display module and a second display module, the first display module comprises a first display and a first optical device, the second display module comprises a second display and a second optical device (Figs. 3, 4A-4B), a first offset exists between a position of the first eye of the user and a position of the first optical device, and a second offset exists between a position of the second eye of the user and a position of the second optical device (Figs. 3, 4A-4B), the method comprising: obtaining three-dimensional image data ([0014]-[0015] – obtaining three-dimensional image data comprising a first input image frame and a second input image frame by a display apparatus 300 as shown in Fig. 3); obtaining a first coordinate conversion matrix and a second coordinate conversion matrix, wherein the first coordinate conversion matrix corresponds to the first optical device and the second coordinate conversion matrix corresponds to the second optical device ([0014]-[0015] – obtaining first transformation corresponds to the first optical device and a second transformation corresponds to the second optical device – the first and second transformations are first and second coordinate conversion matrices respectively because each of the transformation is a geometric transformation as further described at least in [0089] and applied to correct per-pixel distortions, thus comprising a matrix of transformations having a same dimension as that of the corresponding matrix of image pixels); obtaining the first offset and the second offset ([0088] – for each optical device, obtaining an offset representing a current position and orientation of a given eye relative to a given optical axis of a given portion of the display apparatus); processing the three-dimensional image data into a first image based on the first coordinate conversion matrix and the first offset, and displaying, by the first display module, the first image ([0014]-[0015]; [0089] – processing the three-image data into a first input frame image and a second input frame image); processing the three-dimensional image data into a second image based on the second coordinate conversion matrix and the second offset, and displaying, by the second display module, the second image ([0014]-[0015]; [0089] – processing the three-image data into a second input frame image); and processing the first image based on the first offset to obtain a third image ([0014]-[0015]; [0089] – processing the first input frame image based on the first offset, i.e. the current position and orientation of the first eye), and based on a second translation amount, processing the second image to obtain a fourth image ([0131]-[0135] – processing the second input frame image based on a translation amount corresponding to a translational movement), wherein the first display module displays the third image, and the second display module displays the fourth image ([0014]-[0015] – displaying the respective corrected images to the viewer).
However, Peuhkurinen does not disclose the first offset exists between a position of the first display and the position of the first optical device, and the second offset exists between a position of the second display and the position of the second optical device.
Takizawa discloses an offset exists between a position of a display and a position of an optical device ([0004] – an offset exists due to an error in mounting position when a lens was mounted at the time of manufacture, and an optical axis of the lens and a center of a display was shifted).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Takizawa into the display method taught by Peuhkurinen to accommodate the errors introduced during manufacturing in displaying the stereoscopic images.
Regarding claim 17, Peuhkurinen also discloses the method according to claim 16, wherein when a position of the first display module changes, the first coordinate conversion matrix changes ([0014]-[0015]; [0089] – when the position of the first display changes, the first offset changes, the first transformation changes to correct the changed distortion of the first image); or when a position of the second display module changes, the second coordinate conversion matrix changes ([0014]-[0015]; [0089] – when the position of the second display changes, the second offset changes, the second transformation changes to correct the changed distortion of the second image).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG Q DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1116. The examiner can normally be reached IFT.
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, Thai Q Tran can be reached at 571-272-7382. 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.
/HUNG Q DANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights