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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the right eye image" and “the right eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner notes that “the right eye image” may be meant to be “the first eye image”.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the left eye image" and “the second viewpoint”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner notes that “the left eye image” may be meant to be “the second eye image” and that “the second viewpoint” may be meant to correspond to “view of the scene outside the electronic device from the right eye”.
Claim 12 recites the limitations "the right eye image" and “the right eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner notes that “the right eye image” may be meant to be “the first eye image”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the left eye image" and “the second viewpoint”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner notes that “the left eye image” may be meant to be “the second eye image” and that “the second viewpoint” may be meant to correspond to “view of the scene outside the electronic device from the right eye”.
Claim 19 recites the limitations "the right eye image" and “the right eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner notes that “the right eye image” may be meant to be “the first eye image”.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the left eye image" and “the second viewpoint”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The examiner notes that “the left eye image” may be meant to be “the second eye image” and that “the second viewpoint” may be meant to correspond to “view of the scene outside the electronic device from the right eye”.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims (2 and 3), 7, 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7, 13, 7 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11250541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are generally encompassed by the patent claims with the only difference being that the instant application claims 2 and 3 recite performing color correction, as white balancing, the image data based on coloring in the scene, and instant application 8 reciting electronic device is a wearable device. The comparison is seen below.
Instant application claim 2:
Patent 11250541 claim 7:
A method for presenting an image of a scene, comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code for presenting an image of a scene, executable by one or more processors to:
capturing image data of a scene by a camera of an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises the camera and a display;
capture an image of a scene by a camera of an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises the camera and a display, and
generating warped image data of the scene comprising: modifying the image data such that the image of the scene when presented on the display aligns with a view of the scene outside the electronic device from a first viewpoint of a user of the electronic device, and
wherein the camera and the display have a first spatial relationship; determine a second spatial relationship between a viewpoint and the display of the electronic device; warp the image to obtain an image of a first portion of the scene based on the first spatial relationship and the second spatial relationship; and present the warped image on the display, wherein, from the viewpoint, the image of the first portion of the scene is substantially contiguous with a second portion of the scene visible outside an edge of the electronic device.
performing color correction on the image data based on coloring in the scene; and presenting the warped image on the display.
Instant application claim 3:
wherein the color correction comprises a white balancing process.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing white balancing as color correction on an image of a scene. This is advantageous in that image of scenes under different lighting can be modified to appear color realistic to a viewer instead of having a color cast. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing color correction, as white balancing, and the image data based on coloring in the scene.
Instant application claim 7:
Patent 11250541 claim 13:
a user- facing sensor, and wherein the first viewpoint is determined using sensor data collected from the user-facing sensor.
a front-facing camera captures a second image comprising at least part of a user, and wherein the viewpoint is determined based on the second image.
Instant application claim 8:
electronic device is a wearable device.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include incorporating cameras into a wearable device. This is advantageous in that a user can be free to use their hands for other activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electronic device is a wearable device.
Claims (9 and 10), 14, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7, 13, 7 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11250541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are generally encompassed by the patent claims with the only difference being the instant application claims 9 and 10 recite performing color correction, as white balancing, the image data based on coloring in the scene, and instant application 15 reciting electronic device is a wearable device. The claim comparison is substantially the same as instant application claims (2 and 3), 7, 8 and parent claims 7, 13, 7 comparison seen above.
Claims (16 and 17) and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 7 and 7 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11250541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are generally encompassed by the patent claims with the only difference being the instant application claims 16 and 17 recite performing color correction, as white balancing, the image data based on coloring in the scene, and instant application 21 reciting electronic device is a wearable device. The claim comparison is substantially the same as instant application claims (2 and 3) and 8 and parent claims 7 and 7 comparison seen above.
Claims (2 and 3) and 8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 and 10 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11720996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are generally encompassed by the patent claims with the only difference being that the instant application claims 2 and 3 recite performing color correction, as white balancing, the image data based on coloring in the scene, and instant application 8 reciting electronic device is a wearable device. The comparison is seen below.
Instant application claim 2:
Patent 11720996 claim 9 (from which 10 depends):
A method for presenting an image of a scene, comprising:
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code for presenting an image of a scene, executable by one or more processors to:
capturing image data of a scene by a camera of an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises the camera and a display;
capture an image of a scene by a camera of an electronic device, wherein the electronic device comprises the camera and a stereoscopic display, and wherein the camera and the stereoscopic display have a first spatial relationship; determine a second spatial relationship between a first eye and the stereoscopic display of the electronic device; warp the image to obtain a first warped image based on the first spatial relationship and the second spatial relationship; determine a third spatial relationship between a second eye and the stereoscopic display;
generating warped image data of the scene comprising: modifying the image data such that the image of the scene when presented on the display aligns with a view of the scene outside the electronic device from a first viewpoint of a user of the electronic device, and
warp the image to obtain a second warped image based on the first spatial relationship and the third spatial relationship; and present the first warped image and the second warped image on the stereoscopic display.
Claim 10:
wherein the first eye and the second eye correspond to a viewpoint, and wherein, from the viewpoint, an image of a first portion of the scene is substantially contiguous with a second portion of the scene visible outside an edge of the stereoscopic display.
performing color correction on the image data based on coloring in the scene; and presenting the warped image on the display.
Instant application claim 3:
wherein the color correction comprises a white balancing process.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing white balancing as color correction on an image of a scene. This is advantageous in that image of scenes under different lighting can be modified to appear color realistic to a viewer instead of having a color cast. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include performing color correction, as white balancing, and the image data based on coloring in the scene.
Instant application claim 8:
electronic device is a wearable device.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include incorporating cameras into a wearable device. This is advantageous in that a user can be free to use their hands for other activities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include electronic device is a wearable device.
Claims (9 and 10) and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 10 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11720996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are generally encompassed by the patent claims with the only difference being the instant application claims 9 and 10 recite performing color correction, as white balancing, the image data based on coloring in the scene, and instant application 15 reciting electronic device is a wearable device. The claim comparison is substantially the same as instant application claims (2 and 3) and 8 and parent claims 10 and 10 comparison seen above.
Claims (16 and 17) and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10 and 10 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 11720996. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are generally encompassed by the patent claims with the only difference being the instant application claims 16 and 17 recite performing color correction, as white balancing, the image data based on coloring in the scene, and instant application 21 reciting electronic device is a wearable device. The claim comparison is substantially the same as instant application claims (2 and 3) and 8 and parent claims 10 and 10 comparison seen above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4, 11, and 18 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.
Regarding claim 4, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests display comprises a stereoscopic display, and wherein the warped image comprises a first eye image and a second eye image.
Claims 11 and 18 are objected to for similar reasons as claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20130207896 and Pat. No. 9164581 - directed to using viewpoint assessment and a camera to provide an augmented view on a display.
U.S. Pub. No. 20140098133 and Pat. No. 10180715 - directed to tracking eyes to provide an augmented view on a display.
U.S. Pub. No. 20140267012 and Pat. No. 9535496 - directed to tracking eyes to provide an augmented view relative to a visual reference and physical object.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639