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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 7, and 9 - 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Makinen (US 2022/0308356).
As per claim 1, Makinen discloses a light beam reproduction device configured to reproduce light beams virtually emitted from a stereoscopic image when displaying the stereoscopic image in a reproduction space, the light beam reproduction device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to display the stereoscopic image as at least one of a virtual image and a real image by light beams emitted from element cells included in an element cell set which includes the element cells formed two-dimensionally corresponding to a reproduction screen where the light beams emitted from a surface of the stereoscopic image reach (¶ 139),
wherein the stereoscopic image is displayed in a region at a depth distance corresponding to a social distance in the reproduction space (¶ 112, 113), and
a size of each of the element cells in the element cell set and a pitch of the element cells formed two-dimensionally are determined according to a degree to which the stereoscopic image displayed in the reproduction space is observed by an observer (¶ 139).
As per claim 2, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display a set of the light beams emitted from a surface of the stereoscopic image according to positions on the reproduction screen, associate each of the divided light beams to each of the element cells of the element cell set, and calculate components of one or more light beams to be reproduced for each of the element cells of the element cell set (¶ 4, 115, and 116).
As per claim 3, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1, wherein, when displaying the stereoscopic image in the region at the depth distance corresponding to the social distance in the reproduction space (¶ 112, 113), the size of the element cells is determined according to a size of blur generated in the displayed stereoscopic image (¶ 164).
As per claim 5, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1, wherein the size of each of the element cells is determined to be smaller than the pitch of the element cells (¶ 154).
As per claim 6, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1, wherein the size of each of the element cells is 0.8 mm or more (¶ 154).
As per claim 7, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1, wherein the pitch of the element cells is 1.2 mm or less (¶ 154).
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 1 are applicable for claim 10.
Regarding claim 11, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 11.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makinen in view of Silverstein et al (US 2021/0211618, hereafter Silverstein).
As per claim 4, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1.
However, Makinen does not explicitly teach wherein, when displaying the stereoscopic image in the region at the depth distance corresponding to the social distance in the reproduction space, the pitch of the element cells is determined according to a resolution of a retina of the observer observing the displayed stereoscopic image.
In the same field of endeavor, Silverstein teaches wherein, when displaying the stereoscopic image in the region at the depth distance corresponding to the social distance in the reproduction space, the pitch of the element cells is determined according to a resolution of a retina of the observer observing the displayed stereoscopic image (¶ 73).
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 Makinen in view of Silverstein. The advantage is reducing the amount of blurring.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Makinen in view of Sinay et al (US 12,572,020, hereafter Sinay).
As per claim 8, Makinen discloses the light beam reproduction device according to claim 1.
However, Makinen does not explicitly teach wherein the element cells are holograms in which a wavefront from the stereoscopic image is recorded.
In the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the element cells are holograms in which a wavefront from the stereoscopic image is recorded (column 20 lines 3 – 6).
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 Makinen in view of Silverstein. The advantage is reducing the amount of blurring.
Conclusion
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