DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Amendment
2. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendment.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 1 and 11 are objected to because of lack of clarity. In view of applicant remarks, it appears that the newly added limitation “setting average color of the pattern …” is a key factor of the invention. However; the above limitation as broadly claimed, lacks clarity. Since the claim fails to define, how this setting is performed; and therefore, considered as vague and indefinite. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1,5,11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0169769) in view of Shibuya Takeshi (JP 2015/173339).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses a 3D display method, comprising; detecting whether a pattern is
in a video (e.g., abstract, paragraph 0055), determining whether the video has side-by-side content according to the pattern (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0049,0055) and presenting the side-by-side content, if the video has the side-by-side content (e.g., abstract, paragraphs 0013,0054,etc.).
Lee is silent in regards to, average color of the pattern is set according to a background.
Takeshi, in the same field of endeavor, obtaining average of the pattern image, and further teaches pattern that substantially matches the average luminance, e.g., color, of the pattern and the background, it is possible to optimize the pattern in order to ensure more appropriate contrast, the average luminance of the pattern image and the average luminance of the background can be made substantially equal, thus considered to be equivalent to the claimed limitation (e.g., disclosure of the reference).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Takeshi, into the video processing system of Lee, by optimizing the pattern in order to ensure more appropriate contrast, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lee and Takeshi teach the 3D display method according to claim 1, wherein the pattern is disposed at identical location in a plurality frames of the video (e.g., implicit in The Side-by-Side 3D format/method, in which picture data of each of frames are split into an area on the right-half and an area on the left-half, which respectively contain a right-view image and a left-view image for stereoscopic viewing, paragraphs 0049,0055).
Regarding claims 11 and 15, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claims 1 and 5
above, and has been addressed in the above claims. As for control the display unit to present the side by side content (e.g., controller as shown in fig. 2 of Lee).
7. Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0169769) in view of Shibuya Takeshi (JP 2015/173339) further in view of Marta et al. (RU 2452128).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the 3D display method according to claim 1, and detect pattern;
but is silent to explicitly indicate, pattern includes a plurality of color blocks.
MARTA, in the same field of endeavor, and throughout the disclosure teaches video signal
processing, including block header information detection, indicate the block type of the video block, as
well as additional information (e.g., for example, prediction mode, luminance coded block (CBP) pattern,
color CBP pattern, luma/chroma CBP, etc.).
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 2 above, and has
Been addressed in the above claim 2.
8. Claims 3-4,6,13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0169769) in view of Shibuya Takeshi (JP 2015/173339) further in view of Mochinaga et al. (US 2013/0314514).
Regarding claims 3-4, Lee teaches the 3D display method according to claim 1, and detecting
pattern in video, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Lee, is silent to explicitly indicate, pattern includes a plurality of black blocks and a plurality of white blocks, and edge area of the video.
Mochinaga, in the same field of endeavor (e.g. figs. 6a-6d, paragraphs 0019,0060,0064,0091)
clearly teaches the above pattern including black and white blocks and edge area.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the 3D display method according to claim 1, and detecting
pattern in video, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Lee, is silent to explicitly indicate, pattern is a strip.
Mochinaga, in the same field of endeavor (e.g. fig. 6c, shows the strip pattern) clearly teaches
the strip pattern.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to implement such known teaching.
Regarding claims 13-14 and 16, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claims 3-4 and
6 above, and has been addressed in the above claims.
9. Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0169769) in view of Shibuya Takeshi (JP 2015/173339) further in view of Makinen et al. (US 2022/0311990).
Regarding claim 7, Lee teaches the 3D display method according to claim 1, including pattern
detection, as discussed in claim 1 above.
Lee, is silent to explicitly indicate, the pattern is a matrix.
Makinen, in the same field of endeavor (e.g. paragraph 0244) teaches, in some embodiments,
the features form a simple rectangular matrix where rows and columns are in straight horizontal and
vertical lines (e.g. as presented in FIG. 24). This matrix pattern, for example, may allow for easier
rendering calculations with a 3D display.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Makinen, into the display
system of Lee, for easier rendering calculation, as suggested by the reference.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 7 above, and has
been addressed in the above claim.
10. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0169769) in view of Shibuya Takeshi (JP 2015/173339) further in view of Oshikiri Akira (JP 2013/070267).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the 3D display method according to claim 1, including obtaining
one or more frames from the video, addressed in claim 1 above.
Lee, is silent in regards to, performing a depth estimation according to the one or more
frames to obtain a depth information, and generating the side-by-side content according to the depth information.
However, Oshikiri in the same field of endeavor and throughout the disclosure teaches (e.g.,
abstract, figs. 5-6, and indication of, It is also possible to estimate the depth (depth) value based on
the feature amount and generate a depth map. As such a stereoscopic display video signal (two-
parallax image) a frame sequential method in which a right-eye video and a left-eye video are
alternately displayed in a time-division manner, a screen is divided into right and left halves and a right
half is used for the right eye, and further teaches, indication of, Various video formats such as video, side-by-side method that projects the left half of the image for the left eye, the screen is divided
into upper and lower halves, the lower half displays the image for the right eye, and the top half displays
the video for the left eye, etc. Is possible), thus considered to be equivalent to the above limitation as
claimed.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Oshikiri, into the display
system of Lee, by using a depth map to improve the resolution of the image, as suggested by the
reference.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claim 8 above, and has
been addressed in the above claim.
11. Claims 9-10,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0169769) in view of Shibuya Takeshi (JP 2015/173339) further in view of Bai (US 2011/0141247).
Regarding claims 9-10, Lee teaches the 3D display method according to claim 1, but is silent in
regards to, determining whether a demo mode is active; and performing a user setting, if the demo
mode is not active.
Lee, further teaches also teaches that the video display device automatically determines and processes a video according to a preference keyword set by a user (e.g., paragraphs 0003,0012,0019 and etc.); and Bai, in the same field of endeavor (e.g., paragraph 0062) teaches, The 3D image display device 100 may perform the aforementioned operations after a user control command for conversion to a demo mode, thus consider equivalent to the limitation as claimed.
In view of the above, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Bai, into the video display
system of Lee, in order to perform the operations in response to a user command, as suggested by the
reference.
Regarding claims 19-20, the limitations claimed are substantially similar to claims 9-10 above,
and has been addressed in the above claim.
Conclusion
12. 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 Behrooz Senfi, whose telephone number is (571)272-7339. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached on 571 272 7331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 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.
/BEHROOZ M SENFI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482