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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 11/25/21. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 8/29/25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections stand.
The rejection to Claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. section 101 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment filed on 8/29/25.
The application of 35 U.S.C. section 112(f) is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment.
Claims 4-5, 7-11 are now in a condition for allowance.
Regarding pages 11-15 of Applicant’s remarks filed on 8/29/25, Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 8/29/25 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections stand whereby Examiner has provided additional citation to the prior art disclosure to read upon the newly amended language.
Regarding Claims 1, 12, 13 and the prior art KEESLING, Examiner respectfully submits the prior art of record does read upon the claims as amended and construed. At least Claim 1 recites ‘the baseline corresponds to a reference of a display processing operation’ which does not necessarily exclude ‘references to extended processes or components’ – such as googles - that incorporate the ‘display processing operation’ and therefore KEESLING does read upon the newly added language as construed (See rejection contained herein). Accordingly, the rejections stand.
Finally, Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness for combining the prior art of record to reject the outstanding claims (See rejection contained herein). Accordingly, the rejections stand for the independent as well as dependent claims.
FINAL REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (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.
(b) Exceptions: (2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1, 6, 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over KEESLING et al. (Pub. No: US 2018-00063516).
As per Claim 1 KEESLING discloses A display device comprising (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 2 display screens 22 [Abstract]): circuitry configured to: (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 – at least the processing units of 521 [0056-0058])
obtain information from a plurality of cameras, wherein the information corresponds to a user's visual field, the plurality of cameras is in a vicinity of a display unit, and the display unit includes a right display unit and a left display unit (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 – at least the processing units of 521 - disclosing left and right display screens 22 –for each captured image, system generates 560 modified image for each of the user's two eyes by applying a baseline 18 that corresponds to the distant between display screens 22 [0056-0058]); calculate a displacement of a baseline based on the obtained information, wherein the baseline corresponds to a reference of a display processing operation, and the display processing operation is associated with the right display unit and the left display unit (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 [0038-0040, 0049] the obtained information encompasses in addition information within the FOV of the HMD googles and with reference to the display device processing which is a system processing both left and right units [0054-0058]);
convert a display image to correct the calculated displacement of the baseline (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 disclosing for each captured image, system generates 560 modified image for each of the user's two eyes by applying a baseline 18 that corresponds to the distant between display screens 22. The perspective transformation shifts image 502 by an amount determined by the offset / baseline between the acquiring imager and the user's eye [0039-0040, 0049] [0056-0058]); and control the display unit to display the converted display image (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 - the modified images 516 alters the acquired imagery to appear as it would from one of the user's two eyes - at least the processing units of 521 [0039-0040, 0049] [0056-0058])
As per Claim 6 KEESLING discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein: the circuitry is further configured to output the converted display image to each of the right display unit and the left display unit (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 at least the processing units of 521 – pair displays 22 [0096] left and right [0039-0040, 0049] [0056-0058])
As per Claim 12 KEESLING discloses A display method comprising (Figs. 1-3, 5-10 [Abstract]): by a computer ([0049, 0117]): obtaining information from a plurality of cameras, wherein the information corresponds to a user's visual field, the plurality of cameras is in a vicinity of a display unit, the display unit includes a right display unit and a left display unit (See said analysis for Claim 1); calculating a displacement of a baseline based on the obtained information, wherein the baseline corresponds to a reference of display processing, and the display processing is associated with the right display unit and the left display unit (See said analysis for Claim 1); converting a display image to correct the calculated displacement of the baseline (See said analysis for Claim 1); and controlling the display unit to display the converted display image (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 13 KEESLING discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium stored thereon, computer-executable instructions that when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute instructions, the instructions comprising (Figs 1-3, 5-10 [0049, 0117]): obtaining information from a plurality of cameras, wherein the information corresponds to a user's visual field, the plurality of cameras is in a vicinity of a display unit, the display unit includes a right display unit and a left display unit (See said analysis for Claim 1); calculating a displacement of a baseline based on the obtained information, wherein the baseline corresponds to serving as a reference of display processing, and the display processing is associated with the right display unit and the left display unit (See said analysis for Claim 1); and converting a display image to correct the calculated displacement of the baseline (See said analysis for Claim 1) and controlling the display unit to display the converted display image (See said analysis for Claim 1).
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KEESLING et al. (Pub. No: US 2018-00063516) in view of PESACH et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0205942).
As per Claim 2 KEESLING discloses The display device according to claim 1, wherein circuitry is further configured to (See said analysis for Claim 1):
obtain a stereo image from each of the plurality of cameras (Figs. 1-10 [0039-0040] stereo capture required each camara – images obtained to form stereo images [0042-0043] [0056-0058]); and calculate the displacement of the baseline based on (See said analysis for Claim 1); obtained stereo image (Figs. 1-10 [0039-0040] stereo capture required each camara – images obtained to form stereo images [0042-0043] [0056-0058])
KEESLING does not disclose but PESACH discloses corresponding feature points in the image (Fig. 34 pairs of imagers – baseline offset of two imagers and similar feature points of a surface in a capture image from the pair [0380])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include corresponding feature points in the image as taught by PESACH into the system of KEESLING because of the benefit taught by PESACH to incorporated feature detection in images to assist with baseline aspects of imager placements for a plurality of imagers whereby KEESLING is directed towards stereo capture via a plurality of imagers with baseline offset considerations and would benefit naturally for the aligned incorporation of the advanced capabilities of PESACH.
As per Claim 3 KEESLING discloses The display device according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to (See said analysis for Claim 1); the obtained stereo image (See said analysis for Claim 2)
KEESLING does not disclose but PESACH discloses obtain the corresponding feature points based upon feature point detection, and the feature point detection is associated with an object in the image (Figs. 32A-B, 34 [0353] object 3200 head 3250 – stereo image produced from two of imagers 3212a-d [0380]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 2 applies equally to Claim 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 7-11 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Claims 4-5, 7-11 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to convert the display image to minimize the calculated displacement of the baseline, and the display image is converted based on a rotation matrix and a vertical offset" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to convert converts the display image to correct an arrangement displacement between the display unit and the plurality of cameras" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 1, further comprising: a casing; and an optical block including the display unit, the plurality of cameras, and a moving mechanism, wherein the optical block is attached to the casing, the moving mechanism is configured to slide the display unit to right and left with respect to a first direction, and the first direction corresponds to a direction in which the display unit faces the casing" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 8 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 7, wherein the moving mechanism includes: a shaft attached to each of an upper portion of the casing and a lower portion of the casing; and a bearing corresponding to the shaft, wherein the bearing is attached and fixed to each of an upper portion of the display unit and a lower portion of the display unit, the bearing is configured to slide to right and left with respect to a second direction, to move the display unit and the plurality of cameras to the left and the right, respectively, with respect to the second direction, the second direction corresponds to a direction in which the bearing directly faces the casing, and the display unit and the plurality of cameras are integrated" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 7, wherein the moving mechanism includes: two shafts attached to an upper portion of the casing; and bearings corresponding to the two shafts, wherein the bearings are attached to an upper portion of the display unit, the bearings are configured to slide to right and left with respect to a second direction, to move the display unit and the plurality of cameras to the left and the right, respectively, with respect to the second direction, the second direction corresponds to a direction in which the bearings face the casing, and the display unit and the plurality of cameras are integrated" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 10 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 7, wherein the moving mechanism includes: a shaft attached to an upper portion of the casing; and a bearing corresponding to the shaft, wherein the bearing is attached to an upper portion of the display unit., the bearing is configured to slide slides to right and left with respect to a second direction, to move the display unit and the plurality of cameras to the left and the right, respectively, with respect to the second direction, the second direction corresponds to a direction in which the bearing faces the casing, and the display unit and the plurality of cameras are integrated and the moving mechanism is further configured to suppress rotation of the display unit and the plurality of cameras with respect to the second direction" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 11 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The display device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: obtain a stereo image from each of the plurality of cameras; calculate a difference between coordinates of corresponding feature points in the obtained stereo image and translate the display image to each of the right display unit and the left display unit, and the display image is translated based on the calculated difference" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable
The closest prior art of record KEESLING for Claims 4-5, 7-11 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. KEESLING only discloses a display device with a calculation unit that calculates a displacement of a baseline serving as a reference of display processing on right and left display units on the basis of information obtained from a plurality of cameras installed in the vicinity of the right and left display units corresponding to a user's visual field, as well as disclosing a conversion unit that converts an image displayed on the display unit so as to correct the baseline displacement calculated by the calculation unit.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is (571) 270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 7:30-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481