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 Objections
Claim(s) 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
"the projection of the first optical display" and should be "a projection of the first optical display". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 28 objected to because of the following informalities:
"the determined distance" and should be "a determined distance". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
"the continually determined distance" and should be "a continually determined distance". Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 20-22 objected to because of the following informalities:
"the determined movement direction" and should be "a determined movement direction". 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.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 25-26, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130009862) in view of Benko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120212509).
Regarding claim 12, Chan discloses an apparatus for visualizing an interaction of a physical object with a 3-D image, comprising (para 25, “Referring to FIG. 1, a display apparatus 200 is suitable for viewing by a user 10. The display apparatus 200 includes at least an image generator 210, a projection lens set 220, a depth detecting module 240, and a control unit 250.”; para 31, “The depth detecting module 240 detects the position of the user 10, and the depth detecting module 240 may detect the position of the body of the user 10, or the position of the fingers of the user 10 touching the floating real image 260.”): a display device configured to present the 3-D image which is perceivable by a user (para 64, “In some embodiments, the floating real image is an auto-stereoscopic image, or a stereoscopic floating real image viewable by a pair of stereoscopic glasses.”); acquisition device configured to capture first object data of the display device and second object data of the physical object that is spaced apart from the display device and movable (para 31, “The depth detecting module 240 detects the position of the user 10, and the depth detecting module 240 may detect the position of the body of the user 10, or the position of the fingers of the user 10 touching the floating real image 260”), evaluation device is signal-connected to the acquisition device and the first projection device, the evaluation device configured to trigger the projection of the first optical display by the first projection device responsive to a condition in which the determined distance is less than a minimum distance defined in advance (para 26, “Moreover, the control unit 250 is electrically connected to the image generator 210, the projection lens set 220, and the depth detecting module 240.”; also, para 59, “When the user 10 touches a key (the second sub-floating real image), the active depth detecting module 240 can detect where the fingers lightly pressed the key.”; also, para 59, “Therefore, the active depth detecting module may detect the slight finger depth variation and feedback to the control unit 250, so as to receive a corresponding response message including an image or voice feedback message.”). Chan does not disclose a first projection device configured to project a first optical display onto a first region of the physical object, and the acquisition device configured to determine a distance between a reference position formed on a surface of the display device and the physical object using the first object data and the second object data.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Denko discloses a first projection device configured to project a first optical display onto a first region of the physical object (para 42, “To cite one example (described below in greater detail), the interaction system 100 may project a 3D virtual object onto the hand of a user.”; also, para 76, “For example, as shown in FIG. 10, the interaction system 100 may display a bottom portion 1002 of the 3D virtual object 902 onto the user's hand and a top portion 1004 of the 3D virtual object 902 on any other surface(s).”), and the acquisition device configured to determine a distance between a reference position formed on a surface of the display device and the physical object using the first object data and the second object data (para 44, “The depth image reflects the distances of different parts of the interactive surface 102 (and objects placed thereon) from the depth camera 106”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention of an apparatus for visualizing an interaction of a physical object with a 3-D image, comprising a display device configured to present a 3-D image perceivable by a user, an acquisition device configured to capture first object data of the display device and second object data of the movable physical object, and an evaluation device signal-connected to the acquisition device and configured to trigger a response responsive to a condition in which the determined distance is less than a minimum distance defined in advance, with the features of Benko's invention of a first projection device configured to project a first optical display onto a first region of the physical object and of determining a distance between a reference position formed on a surface of the display device and the physical object using the first object data and the second object data. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches that projecting a virtual object directly onto the user's hand and quantifying the real-world distance to that hand with a depth camera provide the user with an intuitive and spatially registered presentation of the interaction, yielding the predictable result of visualizing on the physical object itself the moment at which the hand reaches the 3-D image presented by Chan's display. Benko's depth image reflects the distances of the interactive surface on which the images are presented and of the objects placed relative to it, so that under its broadest reasonable interpretation the determined distance is a distance between a reference position at the display device and the physical object. In the combination, the evaluation device of Chan, which triggers a feedback response when the physical object reaches the predefined position of the floating image, triggers the projection of the first optical display by the first projection device of Benko, so that the projection is triggered responsive to the condition in which the determined distance is less than the minimum distance defined in advance.
Regarding claim 13, Chan as modified by Benko discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the acquisition device is configured to the distance continually in real time.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Benko discloses determine the distance continually in real time (para 50, “In a dynamic mode of operation, the interaction system 100 provides a real-time and dynamic presentation of the 3D virtual object on the interactive surface 102.”; also, para 44, “The depth image reflects the distances of different parts of the interactive surface 102 (and objects placed thereon) from the depth camera 106.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko with the further features of Benko's invention of determining the distance continually in real time. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches that a real-time and dynamic determination of the depth image allows the presentation to track the moving object as it is captured, yielding the predictable result of triggering the projection in a timely manner as the physical object approaches the 3-D image.
Regarding claim 25, Chan as modified by Benko discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, wherein the display device is configured to present the 3-D image in autostereoscopic or holographic format (Chan: para 64, “In some embodiments, the floating real image is an auto-stereoscopic image, or a stereoscopic floating real image viewable by a pair of stereoscopic glasses.”).
Regarding claim 26, Chan as modified by Benko discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, second projection device configured to project a second optical display onto a second region of the physical object, wherein the evaluation device is configured to trigger the second projection should the determined distance be less than the minimum distance defined in advance.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Benko discloses further comprising a second projection device configured to project a second optical display onto a second region of the physical object, wherein the evaluation device is configured to trigger the second projection should the determined distance be less than the minimum distance defined in advance (para 47, “Although only one projector 112 is shown in FIG. 1, the interaction system 100 can include two or more such projectors.”; also, para 42, “the interaction system 100 may actually project image parts on the user's hand, a tabletop below the hand, and even on other parts of the room, such as the floor or a wall.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko with the further features of Benko's invention of a second projection device configured to project a second optical display onto a second region of the physical object triggered on the same minimum-distance condition. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches that the interaction system can include two or more projectors and can project image parts onto different regions such as the user's hand and surfaces adjacent to the hand, yielding the predictable result of ensuring that at least one projection onto the physical object is sufficiently visible when the physical object reaches the 3-D image.
Regarding claim 28, Chan discloses a method for visualizing an interaction of a physical object with a 3-D image, the method comprising (para 59, “When the user 10 touches a key (the second sub-floating real image), the active depth detecting module 240 can detect where the fingers lightly pressed the key.”): presenting the 3-D image using a display device, wherein the 3-D image is perceivable by a user (para 64, “In some embodiments, the floating real image is an auto-stereoscopic image, or a stereoscopic floating real image viewable by a pair of stereoscopic glasses.”); capturing first object data of the display device and second object data of the physical object that is spaced apart from the display device and movable (para 31, “The depth detecting module 240 detects the position of the user 10, and the depth detecting module 240 may detect the position of the body of the user 10, or the position of the fingers of the user 10 touching the floating real image 260.”), condition that the determined distance is less than a minimum distance defined in advance (para 59, “Therefore, the active depth detecting module may detect the slight finger depth variation and feedback to the control unit 250, so as to receive a corresponding response message including an image or voice feedback message.”). Chan does not disclose determining a distance between a reference position formed on a surface of the display device and the physical object using the first object data and the second object data; and projecting an optical display onto a region of the physical object.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Benko discloses determining a distance between a reference position formed on a surface of the display device and the physical object using the first object data and the second object data (para 44, “The depth image reflects the distances of different parts of the interactive surface 102 (and objects placed thereon) from the depth camera 106.”); and projecting an optical display onto a region of the physical object (para 42, “To cite one example (described below in greater detail), the interaction system 100 may project a 3D virtual object onto the hand of a user.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention of a method for visualizing an interaction of a physical object with a 3-D image, comprising presenting the 3-D image using a display device perceivable by a user, capturing first object data of the display device and second object data of the movable physical object, and responsive to a condition that the determined distance is less than a minimum distance defined in advance, with the features of Benko's invention of determining a distance between a reference position formed on a surface of the display device and the physical object and of projecting an optical display onto a region of the physical object. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches that measuring the real-world distance to the object with a depth camera and projecting the display onto the object provide a spatially registered visualization of the interaction, yielding the predictable result of presenting the interaction on the physical object itself when the object reaches the 3-D image presented by Chan. Benko's depth image reflects the distances of the interactive surface on which the images are presented and of the objects placed relative to it, so that under its broadest reasonable interpretation the determined distance is a distance between a reference position at the display device and the physical object.
Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130009862) as modified by Benko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120212509), further in view of Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140177909).
Regarding claim 14, Chan as modified by Benko discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 13, evaluation device is configured to determine a movement direction of the physical object in relation to the display device in real time using the continually determined distance, and wherein the first optical display represents the movement direction of the physical object.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lin discloses wherein the evaluation device is configured to determine a movement direction of the physical object in relation to the display device in real time using the continually determined distance, and wherein the first optical display represents the movement direction of the physical object (para 52, “According to the 3D interactive parameters, the projection unit 210 is allowed to learn the direction where the projected interactive pattern or object is to be moved, the speed of the movement, and so forth.”; also, para 47, “When the user's hand moves, the projection unit 210 may change the projection location correspondingly.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko with the features of Lin's invention of determining a movement direction of the physical object and of a first optical display that represents the movement direction of the physical object. The combination would have been obvious because Lin teaches that learning the direction of movement of the hand and changing the projected display to correspond to that movement communicates the direction of the interaction to the user, yielding the predictable result of representing the movement direction of the physical object by the optical display projected onto the physical object of Chan as modified by Benko.
Regarding claim 15, Chan as modified by Benko discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 14, evaluation device is configured to trigger the projection of the first optical display, representing the movement direction, continually over a predetermined time interval, wherein the first optical display changes over the predetermined time interval.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Lin discloses wherein the evaluation device is configured to trigger the projection of the first optical display, representing the movement direction, continually over a predetermined time interval, wherein the first optical display changes over the predetermined time interval (para 47, “When the user's hand moves, the projection unit 210 may change the projection location correspondingly.”; also, para 52, “According to the 3D interactive parameters, the projection unit 210 is allowed to learn the direction where the projected interactive pattern or object is to be moved, the speed of the movement, and so forth.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko and Lin with the further features of Lin's invention of triggering the projection of the first optical display continually while the movement continues such that the first optical display changes over time. The combination would have been obvious because Lin teaches that the projected display is moved together with the movement of the hand and changes its location correspondingly as the hand moves over the duration of the gesture, yielding the predictable result of a time-varying optical display that changes over the interval during which the movement is represented.
Claim(s) 16-17, 22, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130009862) as modified by Benko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120212509) and Lin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140177909), further in view of Ishigaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20090058800).
Regarding claim 16, Chan as modified by Benko and Lin discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 15, acquisition device is configured to determine a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position, defined in advance, using the second object data of the physical object and trigger, on the basis of the rotational position, the presentation of the first optical display.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ishigaki discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to determine a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position, defined in advance, using the second object data of the physical object and trigger, on the basis of the rotational position, the presentation of the first optical display (para 33, “When the hand movement is determined as a rotary movement (YES in Step S101: rotation start detected), the control section 11 calculates the rotational angle (Step S102). In accordance with the calculated rotational angle, the display section 14 displays the process such as image scrolling. For example, when a right-handed (left-handed) rotation is detected, the screen is scrolled down (up).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko and Lin with the features of Ishigaki's invention of determining a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position defined in advance and triggering a presentation on the basis of the rotational position. Ishigaki teaches determining a rotary movement of the hand from the detected movement of the hand and calculating the rotational angle of the hand relative to a detected rotation-start position, which serves as the initial position defined in advance, and triggering a corresponding display response in accordance with the calculated rotational angle. The combination would have been obvious because, in Chan as modified by Benko and Lin, the acquisition device already captures the second object data of the physical object, so applying Ishigaki's rotational determination to that captured second object data determines the rotational position of the physical object and triggers the presentation of the first optical display on the basis of that rotational position, yielding the predictable result of visualizing the interaction when the physical object is rotated.
Regarding claim 17, Chan as modified by Benko and Lin discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 14, acquisition device is configured to determine a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position, defined in advance, using the second object data of the physical object and trigger, on the basis of the rotational position, the presentation of the first optical display.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ishigaki discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to determine a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position, defined in advance, using the second object data of the physical object and trigger, on the basis of the rotational position, the presentation of the first optical display (para 33, “When the hand movement is determined as a rotary movement (YES in Step S101: rotation start detected), the control section 11 calculates the rotational angle (Step S102). In accordance with the calculated rotational angle, the display section 14 displays the process such as image scrolling. For example, when a right-handed (left-handed) rotation is detected, the screen is scrolled down (up).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko and Lin with the features of Ishigaki's invention of determining a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position defined in advance and triggering a presentation on the basis of the rotational position. Ishigaki teaches determining a rotary movement of the hand from the detected movement of the hand and calculating the rotational angle of the hand relative to a detected rotation-start position, which serves as the initial position defined in advance, and triggering a corresponding display response in accordance with the calculated rotational angle. The combination would have been obvious because, in Chan as modified by Benko and Lin, the acquisition device already captures the second object data of the physical object, so applying Ishigaki's rotational determination to that captured second object data determines the rotational position of the physical object and triggers the presentation of the first optical display on the basis of that rotational position, yielding the predictable result of visualizing the interaction when the physical object is rotated.
Regarding claim 22, Chan as modified by Benko, Lin, and Ishigaki discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 17, acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Benko further discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device (para 107, “Representative telltale actions can include a grasping and moving motion, a striking or poking motion, a twisting motion, a bending motion, a squeezing motion, a cutting motion, a throwing motion, a flicking motion, a tearing motion, and so on.”; also para 108, “For a grasping and moving action, the physics simulator 124 moves the target object in an appropriate manner.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko, Lin, and Ishigaki with the further features of Benko's invention of triggering, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches recognizing a grasping and moving motion of the hand and moving the target 3-D object in a corresponding manner, yielding the predictable result of coupling a change in the presentation of the 3-D image to the movement direction of the physical object.
Regarding claim 23, Chan as modified by Benko, Lin, and Ishigaki discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 22, wherein the display device is configured to present the 3-D image in autostereoscopic or holographic format (Chan: para 64, “In some embodiments, the floating real image is an auto-stereoscopic image, or a stereoscopic floating real image viewable by a pair of stereoscopic glasses.”).
Claim(s) 18-21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130009862) as modified by Benko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120212509), further in view of Ishigaki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20090058800).
Regarding claim 18, Chan as modified by Benko discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 12, acquisition device is configured to determine a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position, defined in advance, using the second object data of the physical object and trigger, on the basis of the rotational position, the presentation of the first optical display.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ishigaki discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to determine a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position, defined in advance, using the second object data of the physical object and trigger, on the basis of the rotational position, the presentation of the first optical display (para 33, “When the hand movement is determined as a rotary movement (YES in Step S101: rotation start detected), the control section 11 calculates the rotational angle (Step S102). In accordance with the calculated rotational angle, the display section 14 displays the process such as image scrolling. For example, when a right-handed (left-handed) rotation is detected, the screen is scrolled down (up).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko with the features of Ishigaki's invention of determining a rotational position of the physical object in relation to an initial position defined in advance and triggering a presentation on the basis of the rotational position. Ishigaki teaches determining a rotary movement of the hand from the detected movement of the hand and calculating the rotational angle of the hand relative to a detected rotation-start position, which serves as the initial position defined in advance, and triggering a corresponding display response in accordance with the calculated rotational angle. The combination would have been obvious because, in Chan as modified by Benko, the acquisition device already captures the second object data of the physical object, so applying Ishigaki's rotational determination to that captured second object data determines the rotational position of the physical object and triggers the presentation of the first optical display on the basis of that rotational position, yielding the predictable result of visualizing the interaction when the physical object is rotated.
Regarding claim 19, Chan as modified by Benko and Ishigaki discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the acquisition device is signal-connected to the display device (Chan: para 26, “Moreover, the control unit 250 is electrically connected to the image generator 210, the projection lens set 220, and the depth detecting module 240.”; also, para 30, “Specifically, the control unit 250 controls the movement of the image generator 210 according to the position of the user 10 detected by the depth detecting module 240, so as to adjust the relative positions of the image generator 210 and the projection lens set 220, the position of the floating real image 260, and the size of the floating real image 260.”), and wherein the acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined distance or the rotational position of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device. Chan does not disclose wherein the acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined distance or the rotational position of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Benko further discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined distance or the rotational position of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device (para 61, “the physics simulator 124 can apply a movement to the 3D virtual object which is proportional to the force. If the user applies the force to a corner of the 3D virtual object, the physics simulator 124 can apply a spinning motion to the 3D virtual object.”; also, para 108, “After the effect is applied, the generation module 120 instructs the projector 112 to project the resultant modified target object onto the interactive surface 102, where the effect is made visible to the user.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko and Ishigaki with the further features of Benko's invention of triggering, on the basis of the determined distance or the rotational position of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches applying a movement such as a spinning motion to the 3-D virtual object in response to the user's interaction and projecting the resultant modified object for the user to see, yielding the predictable result of changing the presentation of the 3-D image in response to the determined distance or rotational position of the physical object.
Regarding claim 20, Chan as modified by Benko and Ishigaki discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 19, acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Benko further discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device (para 107, “Representative telltale actions can include a grasping and moving motion, a striking or poking motion, a twisting motion, a bending motion, a squeezing motion, a cutting motion, a throwing motion, a flicking motion, a tearing motion, and so on.”; also, para 108, “For a grasping and moving action, the physics simulator 124 moves the target object in an appropriate manner.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko and Ishigaki with the further features of Benko's invention of triggering, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches recognizing a grasping and moving motion of the hand and moving the target 3-D object in a corresponding manner, yielding the predictable result of coupling a change in the presentation of the 3-D image to the movement direction of the physical object.
Regarding claim 21, Chan as modified by Benko and Ishigaki discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Ishigaki discloses wherein the acquisition device is configured to trigger, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device (para 107, “Representative telltale actions can include a grasping and moving motion, a striking or poking motion, a twisting motion, a bending motion, a squeezing motion, a cutting motion, a throwing motion, a flicking motion, a tearing motion, and so on.”; also, para 108, “For a grasping and moving action, the physics simulator 124 moves the target object in an appropriate manner.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko and Ishigaki with the further features of Benko's invention of triggering, on the basis of the determined movement direction of the physical object, a change in the presentation of the 3-D image by the display device. The combination would have been obvious because Benko teaches recognizing a grasping and moving motion of the hand and moving the target 3-D object in a corresponding manner, yielding the predictable result of coupling a change in the presentation of the 3-D image to the movement direction of the physical object.
Regarding claim 24, Chan as modified by Benko and Ishigaki discloses the apparatus as claimed in claim 18, wherein the display device is configured to present the 3-D image in autostereoscopic or holographic format (Chan: para 64, “In some embodiments, the floating real image is an auto-stereoscopic image, or a stereoscopic floating real image viewable by a pair of stereoscopic glasses.”).
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20130009862) as modified by Benko et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120212509), further in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 20190018364).
Regarding claim 27, Chan as modified by Benko discloses a apparatus as claimed in claim 12. Chan does not disclose a motor vehicle.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Kim discloses a motor vehicle (para 66, “by incorporating a novel user gesture-sensing holographic man-machine interface for various user-triggered gesture commands to a currently-displayed hologram on a vehicle dash, a vehicle armrest, or another appropriate in-car location, the vehicle onboard holographic communication is able to provide a three-dimensional interactive experience with a vehicle holographic assistant, a vehicle butler, or another hologram presented to vehicle occupants by an in-vehicle holographic application.”; also, para 38, “the driver or the passenger is able to utilize application-specific mid-air gesture commands near or into an animated hologram to interact with or instruct the animated hologram in a particular in-vehicle holographic application.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chan's invention as modified by Benko with the features of Kim's invention of a motor vehicle comprising such an apparatus. The combination would have been obvious because Kim teaches incorporating a gesture-sensing holographic interface for a three-dimensional interactive experience at a vehicle dash, a vehicle armrest, or another in-car location, yielding the predictable result of providing the interaction-visualizing apparatus of Chan as modified by Benko in a motor vehicle interior.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jai Li whose telephone number is (571)272-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu between 06:00-16:00 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571)272-7761. 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.
/JAI W LI/Junior Examiner, Art Unit 2613
/XIAO M WU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights