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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9 and 16-23 drawing to Fig 1-Fig 4C) in the reply filed on 01/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that inventions I and II recite relevant products and that communication, control of electronic device and projection device, analysis of the first image and the generation of the second image are all shared among inventions I and II. This is not found persuasive because inventions I and II are independent or distinct. Inventions I and II share some features; however, some image processing features are distinct. For example, invention I takes a first image S22 fig 2 and analyzes the image to obtain foreground contour at S23 which is distinct from invention II which takes a first image comprising depth information S61 and analyzes the depth information to obtain foreground contour based on depth information. Those are different image processing which require different search strings.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (Pub 20170347079) in view of Kim (Pub 20160366396).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Wang discloses an electronic device, (auto-
calibration device 140 Fig 1- Fig 6) communicatively coupled to a projection device, (projecting device 120 Fig 1), the electronic device comprising a camera, (image capturing device 130 Fig 1), a memory, (storage medium Para. [0022]) and a processor, (corresponding area correcting unit 141 fig 1), wherein: the memory stores an application; and the processor is coupled to the camera and the memory, (fig 1 and Para. [0022]), the processor is configured to execute the following steps of the application:
controlling the projection device to project a marked image having a plurality of
predetermined marks to a target area, (projecting device 120 Fig 1 projects two calibration pattern images S130 Fig 5; Para. [0026]);
controlling the camera to take a first image of the target area, wherein the first
image comprises a foreground object and a background object in the target area, (camera 130 Fig 1 captures projection pattern S140 and Para. [0027], wherein the image comprises foreground and background objects, Para. [0023]).
However, analyzing the first image to obtain a foreground contour corresponding to the foreground object, and overlaying a selected pattern onto the foreground contour to generate a second image, and controlling the projection device to project the second image to the target area are not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses analyzing the first image to obtain a foreground contour corresponding to the foreground object, (foreground object bounding volume setting unit 374 fig 2 and Para. [0053] of foreground object 30 fig 1);
and overlaying a selected pattern onto the foreground contour to generate a second image, and controlling the projection device to project the second image to the target area, (transferring, construed as overlaying, object image 24 onto foreground object bounding volume of foreground object 30 fig 1, Para. 0043-0044). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Wang by Kim for the benefit of improving the determination of image projection positioning and enhancing the display of interactive content.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 17, 18, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim in view of Martin (U.S. 11394940).
Regarding claims 2 and 17, the combination discloses claims 1 and 16. However,
wherein the plurality of predetermined marks is respectively distributed at least two corner positions of the marked image is not explicitly disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Martin discloses wherein the plurality of
predetermined marks is respectively distributed at least two corner positions of the marked image, (Fig 3A Col. 6 lines 29 - 47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Martin for the benefit of aligning captured images with projection images so that captured images are processed and projected with proper positioning after processing.
Regarding claims 3 and 18, the combination discloses claims 1 and 16. However, wherein the first image comprises the complete marked image projected to the target area is not explicitly disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Martin discloses wherein the first image comprises
the complete marked image projected to the target area wherein the first image comprises the complete marked image projected to the target area, (see capturing test patterns and locating corners using the test patterns, construed as capturing a complete image). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Martin for the benefit of aligning captured images with projection images so that captured images are processed and projected with proper positioning after processing.
Regarding claims 9 and 23, the combination discloses claims 1 and 16. However, wherein the plurality of predetermined marks are a plurality of QR codes is not explicitly disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Martin discloses wherein the plurality of
predetermined marks are a plurality of QR codes wherein the plurality of predetermined marks are a plurality of QR codes, (fig 3A and 2D barcode in col. 6 line 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Martin for the benefit of aligning captured images with projection images so that captured images are processed and projected with proper positioning after processing.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Kim in view of Sankoh (Pub 20100166296).
Regarding claims 4 and 19, the combination discloses claims 1 and 16. However,
wherein the processor obtains the foreground contour corresponding to the foreground object of the first image by removing the background object from the first image is not disclosed.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sankoh discloses wherein the processor obtains
the foreground contour corresponding to the foreground object of the first image by removing the background object from the first image, (Para. [0036]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Sankoh for the benefit of modifying projection images by determining foreground objects and generating foreground objects as interactive content thereby enhancing the enjoyment of the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8 and 20-22 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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.
HUMAM M. SATTI
Examiner
Art Unit 2422
/JOHN W MILLER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2422