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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/3/25 is in accordance with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Preliminary Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed 1/3/25 has been entered and made of record.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 11 recites “a recording medium” which appears to cover both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is required to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceeding before the USPTO. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989)(during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim
Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, Aug. 24 2009; p. 2.
The Examiner suggests that the Applicant add the limitation "non-transitory" to the computer readable medium as recited in the claim in order to properly render the claim in statutory form in view of their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the originally filed specification. The Examiner also suggests that the specification may be amended to include the term “non-transitory recording medium" disclosed in the claims and specification to avoid a potential objection to the specification for a lack of antecedent basis of the claimed terminology.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Appelgate et al. (U.S. Pub. 2021/0321081).
Claim 11 recites “a recording medium having recorded thereon a digital three-dimensional element video represented by the three-dimensional element video signal outputted from the video system according to claim 1”.
“To be given patentable weight, the printed matter and associated product must be in a functional relationship. A functional relationship can be found where the printed matter performs some function with respect to the product to which it is associated”. MPEP §2111.05(I)(A). When a claimed “computer-readable medium merely serves as a support for information or data, no functional relationship exists. MPEP §2111.05(III). The recording medium storing the claimed video (i.e., a bitstream) in claim 1 merely serves as a support for the storage of the bitstream and provides no functional relationship between the stored bitstream and storage medium. Therefore, the structure of the bitstream, the scope of which is implied by the system of claim 1, is non-functional descriptive material and given no patentable weight. MPEP §2111.05(III). Thus, the claim scope is just a recording medium storing a three-dimensional element video and is anticipated by Appelgate which teaches that the storage module (e.g., memory) functions to store videos and light field videos (i.e., light field video can be represented by a series of 3D reconstructions) (para[0081]) and can include volatile or nonvolatile memory (para[0050]).
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 1-6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krauthamer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0137428) in view of Tomisawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,243,125).
In regard to claim 1, Krauthamer teaches a video system comprising:
an aerial imaging optical system that has retroreflective properties and converges, in air, light rays from a three-dimensional object to form an aerial image representing the three-dimensional object (i.e., illusion system 10; the portion of the light beams 54 reflected off the retroreflector 58 may pass through the beam splitter 56 and converge to form an image of the 3D source 20 (e.g., real image 60); real images 60 or aerial images may be generated when light beams appear to converge at a point in space; to a guest 62, the image of the 3D source 20 may appear to be floating in air or supported/connected to an environmental feature) (Fig. 3; para[0042]).
However, Krauthamer does not explicitly teach a first lens array that is disposed at an image-forming position of the aerial image or in a vicinity of the image-forming position and includes a plurality of first lenses arranged two-dimensionally; and
a camera that includes an imaging lens and an image sensor and captures light rays transmitted from the aerial image through the first lens array to output a three-dimensional element video signal including light ray information related to the light rays from the aerial image.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches a first lens array that is disposed at an image-forming position of the aerial image or in a vicinity of the image-forming position (i.e., real image 2 (three-dimensionally viewable image); lens array unit 12, image display plane 15a) (Figs. 1-2 and 5-6; col. 5, lines 58-65; col. 10, lines 5-14) and includes a plurality of first lenses arranged two-dimensionally (i.e., lens array unit 12 (a convex lens array)) (Figs. 1 and 2; col. 5, lines 58-65); and
a camera that includes an imaging lens and an image sensor (i.e., a collective lens 18 may be arranged between the half mirror 17 and the area sensor 16) (Fig. 6; col. 10, lines 41-47) and captures light rays transmitted from the aerial image through the first lens array to output a three-dimensional element video signal including light ray information related to the light rays from the aerial image (i.e., display unit 11 captures (recognizes) the image of a detected object 5 that has entered the front space 3, through the lens array unit 12; a captured image in color (image data) (e.g., “light ray information”) is generated on the basis of the input captured data of each color) (col. 6, lines 28-37).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Krauthamer and Tomisawa because Tomisawa teaches forming a real image so that it floats in the air and the viewer can feel the real image as a three-dimensional image by using shading, perspectivism, etc. to form the real image (See, for example, col. 6, line 66-col. 7, line 6 of Tomisawa). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Krauthamer with those of Tomisawa.
In regard to claim 2, Krauthamer and Tomisawa teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Krauthamer does not explicitly teach wherein the camera: (i) outputs the three-dimensional element video signal to an external terminal device; (ii) records the three-dimensional element video signal on an external video recording device; or (iii) outputs the three-dimensional element video signal to a three-dimensional element video display.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches wherein the camera: (i) outputs the three-dimensional element video signal to an external terminal device; (ii) records the three-dimensional element video signal on an external video recording device; or (iii) outputs the three-dimensional element video signal to a three-dimensional element video display (i.e., as shown in Fig. 9, with the use of an IP pens array 61 of the integral photography system, a three-dimensional image (cloud in the drawing) actually having a depth as a real image 6 is formed; display unit 11) (Fig. 9; col. 11, lines 45-51).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Krauthamer and Tomisawa for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 3, Krauthamer and Tomisawa teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. In addition, Krauthamer teaches wherein the aerial imaging optical system reflects the light rays from the three-dimensional object at least twice to form the aerial image at the image-forming position at which the aerial image is symmetrical to the three-dimensional object with respect to the aerial imaging optical system (i.e., Fig. 6; source 20, beam splitter 56, retroreflector 58, virtual image 152 and real image 60; light beams 54) (Fig. 6; para[0048]-[0050]).
In regard to claim 4, Krauthamer and Tomisawa teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Krauthamer does not explicitly teach wherein in plan view of the first lens array, each of the plurality of first lenses is in a circular, rectangular, or hexagonal shape.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches wherein in plan view of the first lens array, each of the plurality of first lenses is in a circular, rectangular, or hexagonal shape (i.e., lens array 12 (a convex lens array); complex lens 28) (Fig. 1; col. 5, lines 61-63; col. 6, lines 55-58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Krauthamer and Tomisawa for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 5, Krauthamer and Tomisawa teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Krauthamer does not explicitly teach wherein a shape of a surface of each of the plurality of first lenses is spherical or aspherical.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches wherein a shape of a surface of each of the plurality of first lenses is spherical or aspherical (i.e., each of the plate-like lens arrays 21 has a plurality of convex lens elements 26 arranged in a plane) (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Krauthamer and Tomisawa for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 6, Krauthamer and Tomisawa teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Krauthamer does not explicitly teach wherein a curvature of each of the plurality of first lenses in a horizontal direction and a curvature of each of the plurality of first lenses in a vertical direction are same, or the curvature in the horizontal direction is larger than the curvature in the vertical direction.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches wherein a curvature of each of the plurality of first lenses in a horizontal direction and a curvature of each of the plurality of first lenses in a vertical direction are same, or the curvature in the horizontal direction is larger than the curvature in the vertical direction (i.e., each of the plate-like lens arrays 21 has a plurality of convex lens elements 26 arranged in a plane) (Fig. 2; col. 6, lines 45-49).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Krauthamer and Tomisawa for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 8, Krauthamer and Tomisawa teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, Krauthamer does not explicitly teach wherein the camera includes a single digital camera or a plurality of digital cameras.
In the same field of endeavor, Tomisawa teaches wherein the camera includes a single digital camera (i.e., area sensor 16 has image pickup devices (CCDs or the like) arranged in a matrix; a collective lens 18 may be arranged between the half mirror 17 and the area sensor 16) (Fig. 6; col. 10, lines 22-27 and 41-47) or a plurality of digital cameras (i.e., area sensor 16 has image pickup devices (CCDs or the like) arranged in a matrix; a configuration may have two area sensors 16) (Fig. 7; col. 10, lines 22-27 and 48-62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of applicant's invention, to combine the teachings of Krauthamer and Tomisawa for the same reasons as those discussed above for claim 1.
In regard to claim 10, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 9, 14, and 16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kristin Dobbs whose telephone number is (571)270-7936. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Thursday 9:30am-5:30pm 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, Sathyanarayanan Perungavoor can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
KRISTIN DOBBS
Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/KRISTIN DOBBS/Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights