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 29 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior-filed application discusses a camera as a peripheral device as well as processor logic to receive images from the peripheral device and mapping the received images onto distortion meshes. Examiner agrees that camera images can be mapped to distortion meshes in the prior-filed application. However, this does not support the second image captured via the camera with distortion compensated by second distortion mesh in the context of applicant’s claim 21. In the prior-filed application, the second distortion mesh can, for example, compensate for distortion caused by a lens when the computer-generated image is viewed via the lens. Claim 21 requires the first image to be a computer generated image, and the first distortion mesh to compensate for distortion caused by the lens. The prior-filed application does not support this claimed first image along with a second image which has a distortion mesh applied, being captured via the camera.
Applicant argues that the prior-filed application supports processing that compensates for distortions within images received from the camera-capable peripheral device, including chromatic aberrations and radial distortion. Examiner agrees that those distortions are compensated, but this is not additional compensation for distortion associated with the camera. The distortions within the images are distortions that occur when presenting an image through a lens (see, for example, section 0003 of prior-filed application specification); they are not distortions associated with the camera itself.
As to claim 24, applicant argues that the prior-filed application describes the HMD context in which "a display panel may be placed a short distance in front of each eye", further explains that "[w]ide angle optics (lenses) may be used to focus on the display and enable a wide field of view”. Examiner does not disagree that wide-angle lenses are supported by the prior-filed application. What is missing is the support for multiple electronic display devices respectively associated with the multiple wide-angle lenses.
Applicant argues that neither Kajita nor Tsujimoto teaches applying a first lens-compensating distortion mesh to a computer-generated image and a second to a camera-captured image, and that Blackwell does not remedy this deficiency. Applicant states that Kajita explains that in some settings, only image-capture distortion is corrected, while in others, only display distortion is corrected. However, cited fig. 8 of Kajita shows a computer-generated image 812 being fed to a distortion corrector 813, the output of which goes to interfaces 815 and 804, then into an image combining unit 805, which also receives input from a distortion corrector 806 that operates on input from an image-capturing unit (e.g. a camera) 801.
Applicant argues that Blackwell discloses two different displays with different user functions but not multiple electronic display devices respectively associated with multiple wide-angle lenses. Examiner agrees that Blackwell supports multiple different displays with user functions, but also notes that the reference allows for multiple electronic display devices associated with respective wide-angle lenses. Multiple wide-angle lenses of cameras taking images of a field of view in a visual environment are described in col. 20, lines 34-60 (cited in the rejection to claim 23) and multiple displays that provide images of that visual environment are described at col. 19, lines 31-43. By displaying the views from the respective wide-angled lens cameras, the display devices are associated with the respective wide-angle lenses.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 18/460,350, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Specifically, while the prior-filed application does disclose cameras, the application does not disclose the second image, which has a distortion mesh applied, being captured via the camera, as described in claims 21, 31, and 36. The prior-filed application further does not disclose distortion associated with the camera, as in claims 22, 32, and 37.
Further, as to claims 24, 33, and 38, while the application supports multiple lenses, which can be wide-angle lenses, in an HMD, the application fails to provide support for comprising multiple electronic display devices respectively associated with the multiple wide-angle lenses.
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.
Claims 21, 22, 30-32, 36, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajita (U.S. Publication 2007/0268316) in view of Tsujimoto (U.S. Publication 2010/0090929).
As to claim 21, Kajita discloses a portable apparatus comprising:
an electronic display device (fig. 4; fig. 5; p. 2, sections 0029-0030; p. 3, section 0048; an electronic head-mounted display presents an image to be viewed monoscopically or stereoscopically);
a camera configured to capture an image (figs. 1-3, element 1; p. 2, section 0027; an image capturing unit is included, which can be a camera-equipped device);
and at least one processor including:
first circuitry to apply a first distortion mesh to a first image generated for display via the electronic display device, the first distortion mesh to compensate for distortion to be caused by the lens when the first image is viewed via the lens, the first image a computer generated image (fig. 6; fig, 8; fig. 9; fig. 11; p. 4, sections 0060-0061; p. 5, section 0081; p. 7, section 0114; p. 10, section 0155; p. 11, section 0186; the distortion caused by the display is corrected via points in a grid being mapped to other locations, deforming the grid and reading on a distortion mesh; the distortion is compensated by two different correctors implementing two different display corrections; one of the images is a cg/computer generated image);
second circuitry to apply a second distortion mesh to a second image, the second image the image captured via the camera (fig. 5; fig. 8; one of the distortion correctors, which implements a distortion mesh, as noted above, is applied to the captured image, which can be via camera, as noted above), the second distortion mesh to compensate for distortion associated with the second image when the second image is viewed (fig. 6; fig. 9; fig. 11; p. 4, sections 0060-0061; p. 5, section 0081; p. 7, section 0114; p. 10, section 0155; p. 11, section 0186; the distortion caused by the display is corrected via points in a grid being mapped to other locations, deforming the grid and reading on a distortion mesh; the distortion is compensated by two different correctors implementing two different display corrections);
third circuitry to generate a composite corrected image from first image and the second image (fig. 5; fig. 8; distortion corrected images are combined in an image combining unit); and
fourth circuitry to present the composite corrected image to the electronic display device (fig. 5; fig. 8; the image combining unit outputs to a display unit).
While a lens would generally be a part of an HMD that potentially distorts an image viewed, Kajita does not explicitly disclose that the HMD includes a lens and display is via the lens. Tsujimoto, however, does disclose that the display includes a lens that is corrected for (p. 1, section 0007; p. 5, section 0089; p. 19, section 0137), The motivation for this is to that uncorrected lens aberration can reduce image quality (p. 1, section 0007). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kajita to use a head-mounted display including a lens, and display using the lens, and correct for the lens in order to avoid reduction in image quality as taught by Tsujimoto.
As to claim 22, Kajita discloses wherein the second circuitry is additionally to compensate for distortion associated with the camera before the second image is presented via the electronic display device (fig. 5; fig. 8; the captured image is fed to distortion correction for the captured camera image and then display, or image combination and then display).
As to claim 30, Kajita discloses the portable apparatus including a battery (p. 6, section 0086).
As to claim 31, see the rejection to claim 21. Further, Kajita discloses a non-transitory machine readable medium storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the operations (p. 11, section 0189-p. 12, section 0193).
As to claim 32, see the rejection to claim 22.
As to claim 36, see the rejection to claim 21.
As to claim 37, see the rejection to claim 22.
Claims 23-29, 33-35, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kajita (U.S. Publication 2007/0268316) in view of Tsujimoto (U.S. Publication 2010/0090929) and further in view of Blackwell (U.S. Patent 8,442,661).
As to claim 23, Kajita does not disclose but Blackwell discloses an apparatus additionally comprising multiple wide-angle lenses (col. 19, lines 31-43; col. 20, lines 34-60; col. 21, lines 49-64; multiple peripheral cameras with wider-angle lenses are included in the overall HMD system; the distortion in each lens is compensated digitally). The motivation for this is to have an entire 360 degree field of view available for correctly rendered display or analysis. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kajita and Tsujimoto to use an apparatus additionally comprising multiple wide-angle lenses in order to have an entire 360 degree field of view available for correctly rendered display or analysis as taught by Blackwell.
As to claim 24, Kajita does not disclose but Blackwell discloses an apparatus additionally comprising multiple electronic display devices respectively associated with the multiple wide-angle lenses (col. 19, lines 31-43; the images from the wide-angle lens cameras can be associated with multiple displays). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 23.
As to claim 25, Kajita does not disclose but Blackwell discloses first circuitry and second circuitry to apply lens specific parameters to compensate for distortion (col. 21, lines 49-64; col. 33, lines 40-43; lens correction logic applies distortion correction based on each lens curvature; the logic can be distributed among multiple computers, thus reading on multiple circuitries applying the parameters). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 23.
As to claim 26, Kajita does not disclose but Blackwell discloses an apparatus additionally comprising a plurality of cameras to capture a plurality of second images (col. 20, lines 34-60; col. 21, lines 49-64; multiple peripheral cameras with wider-angle lenses are included in the system; the distortion in each lens is compensated digitally). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 23.
As to claim 27, Kajita discloses the second circuitry to apply the second distortion mesh to the plurality of second images (p. 7, sections 0110-0111; a plurality of images having the same type of distortion are corrected by the image-capture distortion correction, which is a mesh as noted in the rejection to claim 21).
As to claim 28, Kajita discloses wherein the composite corrected image includes the plurality of second images (p. 7, sections 0110-0111; the plurality of images are combined/composited and sent to display).
As to claim 29, Kajita discloses wherein the composite corrected image is an augmented reality image having captured and computer generated images (fig. 5; fig. 8; p. 1, sections 0004-0005; p. 6, section 0087; the combined/composite corrected image is a mixed/augmented reality image from both cg/computer generated image and captured/camera image).
As to claim 33, see the rejection to claims 23 and 24.
As to claim 34, see the rejection to claim 25.
As to claim 35, see the rejections to claims 26, 28, and 29
As to claim 38, see the rejection to claims 23 and 24.
As to claim 39, see the rejection to claim 25.
As to claim 40, see the rejection to claims 26, 28, and 29.
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 AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights