Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/784,923

SYSTEM, METHOD, NON-TRANSITORY RECORDING MEDIUM, AND DISPLAY DEVICE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Jul 26, 2024
Examiner
SHI, IRVING NMN
Art Unit
2611
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Ricoh Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 0% of cases
0%
Career Allow Rate
0 granted / 0 resolved
-62.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +0% lift
Without
With
+0.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
1 currently pending
Career history
1
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
100.0%
+60.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 0 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: on specifications page 7, line 27 refers to 144A as 1144A. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Sakurahara et al. (20250095287 A1) in view of Walton, et al. (Walton, David R., et al. "Synthesis of environment maps for mixed reality." 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 2017.). Regarding claim 1, Sakurahara disclose a system, comprising circuitry (Fig 3., showing a display device and the circuitry) configured to: Generate display data where a three-dimensional model (Fig. 6 S1, disclosing creation of a 3D model) and an image captured (Spec [0035], disclosing that an image is captured) are superimposed; (Fig. 6 S2, discloses superimposing an object to an image). Perform alignment to align a position of an object included in the three-dimensional model (Fig. 6 S3, disclosing correction of a 3D model to an image) and a position of a subject included in the image (Fig. 11 S311, teaches correction of a 3D model to a target object). Capture the superimposed image (Fig. 6, Fig. 8, discloses creation of a superimposed image and then storing it) in which the position of the object included in the three-dimensional model and the position of the subject included in the image are aligned by the alignment (Fig. 11 S311 and S312, teaches alignment of an object to a target subject). However, Sakurahara does not teach circuitry to project the captured superimposed image on a virtual sphere for display. Walton teaches how to project the captured superimposed image on a virtual sphere for display (Fig 6., discloses a superimposed image projected on a virtual sphere to be displayed). It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with the virtual sphere from Walton. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art to provide entertaining images and/or to access the quality of the captured superimposed image when displayed. In addition, Walton teaches a superimposing process that is similar to Sakurahara. Walton Fig. 4. After the combination of Sakurahara and Walton, either Sakurahara’s or Walton’s captured superimposed image could be projected on a virtual sphere to be displayed. Regarding claim 2, Sakurahara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein. However, Sakurahara fails to teach circuitry configured to generate an additional superimposed image where the captured superimposed image on the virtual sphere is arranged in a 3D virtual space of a 3D model. Walton teaches the circuitry is configured to generate an additional superimposed image (Fig. 6, discloses a superimposed image for the 3D model of a room and another superimposed image on a virtual sphere) in which the virtual sphere on which the captured superimposed image is projected is arranged in a three-dimensional virtual space of the three-dimensional model (Fig. 6, discloses a superimposed image projected on a virtual sphere arranged in a virtual space of the 3D model shown in the background). It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with the captured superimposed image on the virtual sphere and the 3D model from Walton. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art to provide visually appealing backgrounds used for creating entertaining images. Regarding claim 3, Sakurahara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to perform the alignment according to a user operation (Spec [0044], discloses that the user can aligning an object using cursors with an arithmetic processing unit to do the aligning). Regarding claim 4, Sakurahara teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to detect the object in the three-dimensional model and the subject corresponding to the object (Spec [0045], teaches detecting the presence of a target object) to perform the alignment (Spec [0048], discloses aligning and superimposing the detected object to a detected subject in an image using an arithmetic processing unit). Regarding claim 6, it recites the limitations of claim 1 but in method form and is therefore rejected using the same rationale as claim 1. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara et al. (20250095287 A1) in view of Walton, et al. (Walton, David R., et al. "Synthesis of environment maps for mixed reality." 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 2017.) and Pyles (US 20230206513 A1). Regarding claim 5, Sakurahara in view of Walton teaches the system of claim 1, However, Sakurahara in view of Walton fails to teach wherein the captured superimposed image projected on the virtual sphere has adjustable transparency. Pyles teaches wherein the captured superimposed image projected on the virtual sphere has adjustable transparency (Spec [0014], discloses a command receiving interface for adjusting transparency of two images overlapping each other. After the combination of Sakurahara in view of Walton and Pyles, Sakurahara in view of Walton’s captured superimposed image projected on the virtual sphere could be adjusted, e.g., transparency, according to Pyles). It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Pyle’s teaching on transparency adjustment with Sakurahara in view of Walton’s generation of a captured superimposed image. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art to allow a user to customize the appearance of an image and make the system be more user-friendly. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara et al. (20250095287 A1) in view of Pyles (US 20230206513 A1). Regarding claim 7, Sakurahara discloses a display device comprising circuitry (Fig 3., showing a display device and the circuitry) configured to: acquire a captured superimposed image (Fig. 6 S1 and S2 and Fig. 11 S313, disclosing that a 3D model is superimposed on the image where a three-dimensional model is created and then storing the superimposed image) in which a position of an object included in a three-dimensional model and a position of a subject included in an image are aligned (Fig. 6 S3, disclosing correcting an object to match with the image); and However, Sakurahara does not teach Project and display the captured superimposed image on a display. Pyles discloses Project and display the captured superimposed image on a display (Spec [0038], discloses using a projector to project an image on a vertical surface). It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to take Sakurahara’s apparatus and combine it using Pyles’ projector to project and display the captured superimposed image on a display. The person possessing ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the prior art to allow the user see and access the end result of the superimposed image. 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 PAIGE GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 26, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
Grant Probability
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 0 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month