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 August 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
The applicant argues that Lee (US 2024/0134195) does not teach the display device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where second metadata included in a data file acquired from the external apparatus via the communication unit includes information concerning occurrence of a trouble in the external apparatus, the control unit controls the correction unit to execute correction responsive to the trouble on the image of the image data acquired by the acquisition unit. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee disclose instruction and commands that are stored in memory, which implies use of a file, that further is responsive to the operation and calculation of the processor. Here, the examiner hopes the applicant can appreciate that word “trouble” has no functional meaning due to the broad nature of the term and a term that one of ordinary skill in the art would not give any specific meaning. Lee discloses an invention that would apply to multiple wearable devices. Each wearable devices commonly has two display (i.e. left and right) and further describes scenarios where compensating and correction is necessarily to optimize the operation of the devices. The requirement to correct and compensate applies that trouble occurred. The use of instructions and applications that could be stored in memory implies that some type of file and metadata is applied. Thus, the examiner maintains the prior art for the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 10, 12 - 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2024/0134195, hereafter Lee) in view of Lee et al (US 2018/0129551, hereafter Lee2).
As per claim 1, Lee discloses a display device comprising:
a communication unit (Figure 6 element 650) configured to perform communication with an external apparatus (¶ 86);
a display unit (Figure 6 element 630) configured to display an image; at least one processor (Figure 6 element 610)); and
a memory (Figure 6 element 620) coupled to the at least one processor storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to function as:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire image data of an image to be displayed on the display unit, from the external apparatus via the communication unit (¶ 105);
a correction unit configured to correct the image to be displayed on the display unit (¶ 80,104, and 139), wherein:
the control unit is further configured to acquire a data file with second metadata from the external apparatus via the communication, and in a case where the second metadata includes information concerning occurrence of a trouble in the external apparatus, the control unit controls the correction unit to execute correction responsive to the trouble on the image of the image data acquired by the acquisition unit (¶ 96).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach a control unit configured to generate first metadata of information concerning an operating state and a communication state of the display device and attach the generated first metadata to data to be transmitted to the external apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee2 discloses a control unit configured to generate first metadata of information concerning an operating state and a communication state of the display device and attach the generated first metadata to data to be transmitted to the external apparatus (¶ 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lee in view of Lee2. The advantage is improved video coding.
As per claim 2, Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the first metadata includes information concerning a trouble having occurred in a processing section as a component of the display device and a trouble having occurred in a communication path in the display device, and wherein the control unit tries improvement of the trouble.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee2 teaches wherein the first metadata includes information concerning a trouble having occurred in a processing section as a component of the display device and a trouble having occurred in a communication path in the display device, and wherein the control unit tries improvement of the trouble (¶ 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lee in view of Lee2. The advantage is improved video coding.
As per claim 3, Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1, further comprising an image capturing unit, and
wherein the processor also functions as a processing unit configured to perform predetermined processing on an image acquired by the image capturing, wherein the correction unit performs processing for synthesizing an image acquired from the external apparatus and an image output from the processing unit, and wherein the control unit displays an image synthesized by the correction unit on the display unit (¶ 80,104, and 139).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lee in view of Lee2. The advantage is improved video coding.
As per claim 5, Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein the processor also functions as an estimation unit configured to estimate a position and/or a posture of the display device (¶ 61), and a generation unit configured to generate the image to be displayed on the display unit, based on a result of estimation performed by the estimation unit, and wherein in a case where second metadata included in a data file acquired from the external apparatus via the communication unit includes information concerning occurrence of a trouble in the external apparatus (¶ 61).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach a case where the second metadata includes an abnormality of a projection error in the display device, the control unit performs control to display an image generated by the generation unit on the display unit in place of the image of the image data acquired by the acquisition unit.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches a case where the second metadata includes an abnormality of a projection error in the display device, the control unit performs control to display an image generated by the generation unit on the display unit in place of the image of the image data acquired by the acquisition unit (¶ 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lee in view of Lee2. The advantage is improved video coding.
As per claim 6, Lee discloses the display device according to claim 5, further comprising an image capturing unit, and
wherein the processor also functions as a processing unit configured to perform predetermined processing on an image acquired by the image capturing unit, and wherein the correction unit performs processing for synthesizing an image generated by the generation unit and an image output from the processing unit, and wherein the control unit displays an image synthesized by the correction unit on the display unit (¶ 80,104, and 139).
As per claim 7, Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1, wherein in a case where second metadata included in a data file acquired from the external apparatus via the communication unit includes information concerning occurrence of a trouble in the external apparatus, the control unit controls the communication unit to switch communication from the external apparatus to another external apparatus and acquires the image to be displayed on the display unit from the other external apparatus (¶ 96).
As per claim 8, Lee discloses the display device according to claim 1.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit generates third metadata concerning a condition of communication with the external apparatus and attaches the generated third metadata to data to be transmitted to the external apparatus.
In the same field of endeavor, Lee2 teaches wherein the control unit generates third metadata concerning a condition of communication with the external apparatus and attaches the generated third metadata to data to be transmitted to the external apparatus (¶ 41).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Lee in view of Lee2. The advantage is improved video coding.
Regarding claim 9, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 9.
Regarding claim 10, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 2 are applicable for claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 3 are applicable for claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 5 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 20.
Ass per claim 21, Lee discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein: the information processing apparatus communicates with a plurality of display devices, the metadata includes delay information in a case where a delay occurs in processing by the estimation unit or the generation unit with respect to one of the display devices, and the metadata is transmitted to all the display devices (¶ 134)
As per claim 22, Lee discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein: the information processing apparatus communicates with a plurality of display devices, the control unit is further configured to acquire a data file with second metadata from each of the display devices, when the second metadata includes information concerning a trouble occurring in one of the display devices, the control unit generates the metadata to include the information concerning the trouble, and the metadata is transmitted to all of the display devices (¶ 134).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487