DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 06/03/2026 in which claim 7 is cancelled, claims 1, 8, and 11 are amended, and claim 12 is added as a new claim.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein previous Responses to Arguments.
In view of the terminal disclaimer, the double patenting rejection is withdrawn. Remarks, 8.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Lucchi is deficient for failing to teach or suggest “capturing a display frame by a screen capture API” and for failing to teach or suggest “performing watermark detection on the display frame captured by the screen capture API.” Examiner is unpersuaded of error. First, Lucchi’s teachings are not relied upon, alone, for teaching the averred features. Regarding the screen capture API, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 explains that the rejection relies upon (1) the fact that the skilled artisan does not find the source of content patentably limiting; and (2) the combined teachings of Couleaud, Luo, Lucchi, and Flaharty. As explained in the rejection, the source of mixed content (2D and 3D videos and computer graphic elements, text, etc.) can come from anywhere and the described technology of the prior art operates without regard to the source. Indeed, as explained in the rejection, infra, the teachings of Couleaud bolster this factual finding. Furthermore, Couleaud teaches that content items having control watermarks embedded therein can come from captured images or video of a real-world environment or from a screen capture obtained from either the local device or a remote device via electronic communication. Couleaud also teaches the media applications described in the publication “may be provided via an application programming interface (API). Echoing the ubiquitous nature of screen capture as an image/video source, Luo’s para. [0057] teaches the watermarked image can be a screen capture, Lucchi’s para. [0038] teaches the copy of watermarked video can be obtained through a screen capture, and Flaharty’s para. [0075] teaches frames of media data with watermarks can be obtained through a screen capture function. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that 3D video content coming from a screen capture source is patentably distinguishable from the prior art is belied by substantial evidence to the contrary. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded of patentability.
On page 10 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the teachings of Lucchi are deficient because it fails to teach or suggest watermark insertion and extraction for the purpose of “locating a watermarked rectangular image region in a screen-captured display frame.” Examiner finds the argument treats the references individually rather than address the rationale for the rejection. The rejection relies on a combination of references, including at least Kim and Ju, to teach defining a range within an image for displaying non-overlapping 3D content together with 2D content utilizing side information conveyed via a watermark.
On page 11 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Rodriguez is deficient for failing to teach or suggest “performing watermark detection on a display frame captured by a screen capture API.” Examiner finds the argument either (1) moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment; or (2) unpersuasive as drawn to a reference not relied upon to teach or suggest the averred feature. As explained, supra, at least the combination of Couleaud, Luo, Lucchi, and Flaharty is relied upon for teaching a screen capture API was an obvious content source at the time of Applicant’s invention. See claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, infra.
On page 13 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Kim is deficient for failing to teach or suggest “structurally dividing, recombining, or regenerating existing image content.” Examiner finds Applicant does not argue that which is claimed, and therefore, the argument is unpersuasive of error. Furthermore, Kim’s Fig. 5 illustrates a divided display having a video window displaying 3D content within a larger rendered image. Therefore, it is unclear how Applicant summarily concluded that Kim does not structurally divide an image displayed on-screen. Applicant further alleges Kim is deficient because Kim achieves 3D content by receiving extra (supplemental) information. Well, that’s how the technology works, 3D content utilizes a supplemental channel for a second eye/view to achieve the effect of depth. Indeed, Applicant’s Specification (published para. [0006]) explains the stereoscopic format includes supplemental information, in the form of right eye image information, to achieve 3D. Accordingly, Examiner is unpersuaded of error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1, 2, and 8–11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucchi (US 2022/0201372 A1), Ju (US 2014/0098114 A1), Flaharty (US 2013/0301872 A1), Luo (US 2023/0362399 A1), Rodriguez (US 2010/0309287 A1), Kim (US 2012/0046078 A1), and Couleaud (US 2026/0179167 A1).
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud teaches or suggests a stereoscopic image display method, adapted to an electronic apparatus comprising a stereoscopic display, and comprising: obtaining a display frame comprising a streaming image (Lucchi, ¶¶ 0033, 0034, and claim 8: teaches streaming technology such as HLS and DASH having a watermark inserted into a streamed frame wherein the watermark is capable of carrying a payload comprising metadata about the digital media stream or otherwise additional side information) by capturing the display frame using a screen capture API (Couleaud, ¶ 0062: teaches that content items having control watermarks embedded therein can come from captured images or video of a real-world environment or from a screen capture obtained from either the local device or a remote device via electronic communication, thus teaching that where the content items come from is non-limiting; Couleaud, ¶ 0033: teaches the media applications described in the publication “may be provided via an application programming interface (API); Luo, ¶ 0057: teaches the watermarked image can be a screen capture; Lucchi, ¶ 0038: teaches the copy of watermarked video can be obtained through a screen capture; Flaharty, ¶ 0075: teaches frames of media data with watermarks can be obtained through a screen capture function); extracting at least one rectangular image region in the display frame by executing edge detection and straight line detection (Examiner notes edge and line detection are the same thing; see dictionary-type references, Hofmann and Sinha, under Conclusion Section of this Office Action; Flaharty, ¶ 0075: teaches edge detection algorithms for determining watermark areas in an image; Couleaud, ¶ 0043: also teaches edge detection techniques used for object detection); executing a watermark detection to detect whether a watermark appears in the at least one rectangular image region of the display frame capture by using the screen capture API (While Lucchi teaches detecting a watermark inserted into a streamed frame, and while the skilled artisan would have understood the watermark to likely be rectangular, Lucchi is nevertheless silent on the obviousness of the shape of the watermark region being rectangular; Thus, Luo is relied upon to teach this feature; Luo, ¶¶ 0054 and 0062, and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning; Couleaud, Fig. 1, e.g. Element 113: illustrates the watermarks are rectangular), wherein the watermark is configured to indicate that the streaming image within one of the at least one rectangular image region conforms to a stereoscopic image format (This feature is interpreted in view of original claim 2 wherein it is explained that the watermark effectuates the switching of the display between 3D mode and 2D mode; Ju, ¶ 0088: teaches that when 2D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 2D mode and when 3D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 3D mode; Ju, ¶ 0075: teaches the side information can include information regarding the particular 3D format, such as side-by-side format, etc.; Examiner notes it was well-known prior to Applicant’s filing date that watermarks can convey side information such as information regarding the switching of a display portions from 2D to 3D; Lucchi, ¶¶ 0005 and 0032: teaches a watermark can carry side information, e.g. metadata, about the digital media; Rodriguez, ¶¶ 0029–0032: teaches approaches for including both 2D and 3D content in video streams can include steganographically (e.g. using watermarks) embedding 3D information that a compatible decoding device can use along with 2D content to display 3D content; It is noted that while Ju teaches operating the panel in 2D mode or 3D mode, the prior art includes autostereoscopic display panels that can control which regions within a displayed frame are 2D and 3D as taught, for example, by Nakaoka and Sonobe, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; see also, infra, regarding the teachings of Kim); in response to the watermark appearing in a certain rectangular image region of the at least one rectangular image region, determining an image range of the streaming image conforming to the stereoscopic image format in the display frame according to the certain rectangular image region embedded with the watermark (Kim, Fig. 5: illustrates that sub-pictures within the display can be displayed as an active video window and presented in 3D whilst other content can be displayed in 2D, such as surrounding text; Kim, Fig. 5: illustrates that a certain rectangular region having a smaller image range within a larger image having a larger image range is presented in a stereoscopic (i.e. 3D) format; While Kim teaches the certain rectangular region being displayed in 3D, the teachings of Ju, in combination with the other cited references, are relied upon for teaching the watermark can include side information or metadata that is used to signal to the playback device that the content is encoded as capable of being displayed in 3D; Ju, ¶ 0088: teaches that when 2D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 2D mode and when 3D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 3D mode; Ju, ¶ 0075: teaches the side information can include information regarding the particular 3D format, such as side-by-side format, etc.; Examiner notes it was well-known prior to Applicant’s filing date that watermarks can convey side information such as information regarding the switching of a display portions from 2D to 3D; Lucchi, ¶¶ 0005 and 0032: teaches a watermark can carry side information, e.g. metadata, about the digital media; Rodriguez, ¶¶ 0029–0032: teaches approaches for including both 2D and 3D content in video streams can include steganographically (e.g. using watermarks) embedding 3D information that a compatible decoding device can use along with 2D content to display 3D content; It is noted that while Ju teaches operating the panel in 2D mode or 3D mode, other prior art, in addition to Kim, includes autostereoscopic display panels that can control which regions within a displayed frame are presented in 2D or 3D as taught, for example, by Nakaoka and Sonobe, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action) and generating a stereoscopic format image according to the display frame and the certain rectangular image region comprises (see supra): dividing the display frame according to the image range of the streaming image to obtain the certain rectangular image region with the watermark and a two-dimensional background image block which is non-overlapped with the certain rectangular image region, wherein the certain rectangular image region comprises the streaming image conforming to the stereoscopic image format, and the streaming image comprises a first perspective image and a second perspective image; combining the first perspective image of the streaming image in the certain rectangular image region with the two-dimensional background image block as a first perspective image of the stereoscopic format image; and combining the second perspective image of the streaming image in the certain rectangular image region with the two-dimensional background image block as a second perspective image of the stereoscopic format image (Examiner notes 3D video is often achieved by a display alternatingly displaying a left-eye image and a right-eye image to the viewer. Examiner interprets this claim as saying that in 2D mode, the watermark can be segmented (segregated) from the 2D image such that the rest of the image is considered the background image, and that in 3D mode, the 2D background image (e.g. a left-eye image) can be combined with another image (e.g. a right-eye image) to achieve stereoscopic imaging on the display; Luo, Fig. 3B: teaches segmenting an image such that the watermark regions are separated from the background image; Couleaud, Fig. 1: illustrates the watermark is segmented from the rest of the image; Ju, ¶¶ 0075 and 0080: teaches the stereoscopic format of side-by-side, which teaches creating first and second images (perspective images) for achieving stereoscopic effect; The teachings of Ju, for example, are relied upon for teaching 3D content “pushed” to the device as opposed to the client device requesting 3D content (i.e. “a pull”); Examiner interprets this limitation as saying that a portion of the screen displays 2D “background” information and another portion of the screen displays the 2D “background” information (left eye) along with the other perspective image (right eye) to generate a 3D portion (window) of the image; Kim, ¶¶ 0081–0094 and Fig. 5: teaches that an event can trigger the display of 2D content items to convert to displaying a portion of the 2D content in a portion of the display as 3D content wherein the effect is created by selectively displaying right-eye content along with 2D left eye content upon recognizing the event; It is noted that while Ju teaches operating the panel in 2D mode or 3D mode, the prior art includes autostereoscopic display panels that can control which regions within a displayed frame are 2D and 3D as taught, for example, by Nakaoka and Sonobe, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action); and controlling the stereoscopic display to operate in a stereoscopic display mode to display the stereoscopic format image, to present image content of the streaming image with stereoscopic visual effect (see supra; This feature is interpreted in view of original claim 2 wherein it is explained that the watermark effectuates the switching of the display between 3D mode and 2D mode; Ju, ¶ 0088: teaches that when 2D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 2D mode and when 3D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 3D mode; Examiner notes it was well-known prior to Applicant’s filing date that watermarks can convey side information; Lucchi, ¶¶ 0005 and 0032: teaches a watermark can carry side information, e.g. metadata, about the digital media; Rodriguez, ¶¶ 0029–0032 and 0069: teaches approaches for including both 2D and 3D content in video streams can include steganographically (e.g. using watermarks) embedding 3D information that a compatible decoding device can use along with 2D content to display 3D content; Kim, ¶ 0110: teaches the content can be received from a server “by a streaming method”).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi, with those of Ju, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of sending side information along with media data using a watermark would be led to their relevant teachings and because it would have been straightforward for the skilled artisan to utilize Lucchi’s watermark for sending Ju’s side information to signal a switching between 2D and 3D display modes. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi and Ju used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi and Ju, with those of Flaharty and Luo, because all four references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of encoding and decoding watermarks as side information would be led to their relevant teachings and because Flaharty and Luo are simply explaining how the watermarks are detected using image analysis tools known to the skilled artisan wishing to recognize and extract objects from images. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, and Luo used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, and Luo, with those of Rodriguez, because all five references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of encoding and decoding watermarks as side information would be led to their relevant teachings and because, as Rodriguez explains, carrying 3D information in digital watermarks advantageously allows 3D data to be encoded in legacy 2D streaming formats (Rodriguez, ¶¶ 0029 and 0032). Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, and Rodriguez used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, and Rodriguez, with those of Kim, because all six references are drawn to the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the problem to be solved such that one wishing to practice the art of encoding and decoding watermarks as side information would be led to their relevant teachings or would be drawn to the solutions of partial conversion from 2D to 3D content and because, as at least the combination of Rodriguez and Kim explains, carrying 3D information in digital watermarks advantageously allows 3D data to be encoded in legacy 2D streaming formats (Rodriguez, ¶¶ 0029 and 0032) such that when the device is capable of displaying 3D content, it is advantageous to convert the 2D content to allow the client device to display a portion of the content in 3D (Kim, e.g. Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 0076, 0077, and 0086). Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, and Kim used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, and Kim, with those of Couleaud, because all seven references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of encoding and decoding watermarks as side information would be led to their relevant teachings and because Couleaud’s teachings simply provide more detail provided in other cited prior art regarding screen capture, such as how an API can effectuate watermark detection in images and video obtained through screen capture using edge analysis and evidences that the skilled artisan would not find it patentably distinguishing that the source of the content came from a screen capture API. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: in response to the watermark not appearing in the at least one rectangular image region, controlling the stereoscopic display to operate in a two-dimensional display mode to display the display frame (Ju, ¶ 0088: teaches that when 2D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 2D mode and when 3D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 3D mode).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the stereoscopic image format comprises a side-by-side format (Ju, ¶¶ 0075 and 0080: teaches the stereoscopic format of side-by-side).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of obtaining the display frame comprising the streaming image comprises: extracting the display frame comprising the streaming image by using a screenshot function (Examiner finds extracting a portion of an image is the same as a “screenshot function”; Luo, ¶¶ 0011, 0054, 0062, and 0076 and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to extract and decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of executing the watermark detection on the at least one rectangular image region comprises: detecting an invisible watermark in the at least one rectangular image region through a deep learning model (Lucchi, ¶ 0005: teaches the watermark can be invisible; Luo, ¶¶ 0054 and 0062, and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning).
Claim 11 lists the same elements as claim 1, but in apparatus form rather than method form. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display frame captured by the screen capture API comprises the streaming image and a window operation interface of an application (Examiner notes that the source of the displayed data being from a screen capture API is not relevant to those skilled in the art; Couleaud, ¶ 0062: teaches that content items having control watermarks embedded therein can come from captured images or video of a real-world environment or from a screen capture obtained from either the local device or a remote device via electronic communication, thus teaching that where the content items come from is non-limiting; Couleaud, ¶ 0033: teaches the media applications described in the publication “may be provided via an application programming interface (API); Luo, ¶ 0057: teaches the watermarked image can be a screen capture; Lucchi, ¶ 0038: teaches the copy of watermarked video can be obtained through a screen capture; Flaharty, ¶ 0075: teaches frames of media data with watermarks can be obtained through a screen capture function; Regarding the displayed content being “mixed” content made up of 3D video and 2D content typical of a windows operating system, Kim, Fig. 5: illustrates that sub-pictures within the display can be displayed as an active video window and presented in 3D whilst other content can be displayed in 2D, such as surrounding text), and the certain rectangular image region embedded with the watermark is the image range of the streaming image conforming to the stereoscopic image format (Kim, Fig. 5: illustrates that a certain rectangular region having a smaller image range within a larger image having a larger image range is presented in a stereoscopic (i.e. 3D) format; While Kim teaches the certain rectangular region being displayed in 3D, the teachings of Ju are relied upon for teaching the watermark can include side information or metadata that is used to signal to the playback device that the content is encoded as capable of being displayed in 3D; Ju, ¶ 0088: teaches that when 2D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 2D mode and when 3D content is presented to the display, as indicated by side information, the display operates in 3D mode; Ju, ¶ 0075: teaches the side information can include information regarding the particular 3D format, such as side-by-side format, etc.; Examiner notes it was well-known prior to Applicant’s filing date that watermarks can convey side information such as information regarding the switching of a display portions from 2D to 3D; Lucchi, ¶¶ 0005 and 0032: teaches a watermark can carry side information, e.g. metadata, about the digital media; Rodriguez, ¶¶ 0029–0032: teaches approaches for including both 2D and 3D content in video streams can include steganographically (e.g. using watermarks) embedding 3D information that a compatible decoding device can use along with 2D content to display 3D content; It is noted that while Ju teaches operating the panel in 2D mode or 3D mode, other prior art, in addition to Kim, includes autostereoscopic display panels that can control which regions within a displayed frame are presented in 2D or 3D as taught, for example, by Nakaoka and Sonobe, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action).
Claims 3–5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, and Sinha (US 2023/0101817 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, and Sinha teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of extracting the at least one rectangular image region in the display frame by executing the edge detection and the straight line detection comprises: executing the edge detection on the display frame to obtain an edge image; and executing the straight line detection on the edge image to extract the at least one rectangular image region in the display frame according to a plurality of straight lines (Flaharty, ¶ 0075: teaches edge detection algorithms for determining watermark areas in an image; Luo, ¶¶ 0054 and 0062, and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning; Sinha, ¶ 0111: teaches edge detection is used to detect straight lines or boxes containing watermarks or other features).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, and Couleaud, with those of Sinha, because seven of the eight references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of encoding and decoding watermarks as side information would be led to their relevant teachings and because Sinha is simply explaining what the skilled artisan already knows regarding the use of prior art edge detection algorithms being used to detect straight lines when performing image analysis. Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, and Sinha used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, and Sinha teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the step of executing the straight line detection on the edge image to extract the at least one rectangular image region in the display frame according to the plurality of straight lines comprises: executing the straight line detection on the edge image to obtain the plurality of straight lines from the edge image (Sinha, ¶ 0111: teaches edge detection is used to detect straight lines or boxes containing watermarks or other features); selecting at least one target rectangular contour from at least one candidate rectangular contour formed by the plurality of straight lines (Flaharty, ¶ 0075: teaches edge detection algorithms for determining watermark areas in an image; Luo, ¶¶ 0054 and 0062, and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning) according to a rectangular size limit and a rectangular ratio limit (Sinha, ¶ 0111: teaches edge detection is used to detect straight lines or boxes containing watermarks or other features; Sinha, ¶ 0156: teaches a structured image, i.e. a watermark in an image, may have size limitations on box-type structures; Luo, e.g. ¶ 0040: teaches the watermark area can have a pre-defined size; see also Kuraki cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action); and extracting the at least one rectangular image region from the display frame according to the at least one target rectangular contour (Flaharty, ¶ 0075: teaches edge detection algorithms for determining watermark areas in an image; Luo, ¶¶ 0054 and 0062, and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, and Sinha teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 4, wherein the plurality of straight lines comprise a plurality of vertical straight lines and a plurality of horizontal straight lines (Examiner notes a bounding box is made up of a plurality of vertical and horizontal straight lines; Luo, ¶¶ 0054 and 0062, and Fig. 3B: teaches a watermark decoder that utilizes image analysis techniques to decode a rectangular portion of the image where the watermark is detected using machine learning; Sinha, ¶ 0111: teaches edge detection is used to detect straight lines or boxes containing watermarks or other features).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, Sinha, and Pan (US 2021/0203994 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, Sinha, and Pan teaches or suggests the stereoscopic image display method as claimed in claim 3, wherein before the step of executing the edge detection on the display frame to obtain the edge image, the method further comprises: executing a contrast adjustment process on the display frame; and executing a Gaussian blur process on the display frame (Pan, ¶ 0110: teaches using blurring or contrast adjustment (e.g. lightening) on a watermarked image before decoding the image for testing robustness of the watermark to detection; Examiner finds it would have been obvious to perturb the image in this way to help detect the watermark at the destination device to increase readability; see also Nercessian, cited under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action, explaining the skilled artisan knows that edge detection algorithms should first be smoothed, i.e. using Gaussian blur filter, to remove noise prior to detecting edges).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, and Sinha, with those of Pan, because eight of the nine references are drawn to the same field of endeavor such that one wishing to practice the art of encoding and decoding watermarks as side information would be led to their relevant teachings and because Pan is simply explaining what the skilled artisan already knows regarding the use of smoothing and contrast filtering prior to edge detection algorithms to improve performance of edge detection (see also Nercessian). Therefore, the combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Lucchi, Ju, Flaharty, Luo, Rodriguez, Kim, Couleaud, Sinha, and Pan used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shao (US 2025/0085914 A1) teaches a signal can be used to switch a display between 2D and 3D and vice versa (¶ 0110).
Hoarty (US 2025/0008144 A1) teaches using a watermark as trigger to control the media playback device (e.g. ¶ 0040 and Claim 9).
Luo (US 2023/0362399 A1) teaches using machine learning to detect and decode a digital watermark in an image (¶ 0054) and teaches image analysis on a rectangular portion of the image (e.g. ¶ 0076 and Fig. 3B).
Kerofsky (US 2022/0067415 A1) teaches detecting a watermark in a ROI of an image (¶ 0052).
Reed (US 2022/0036495 A1) teaches using a watermark as a trigger to control the content being displayed (¶ 0032) and teaches it does not matter whether the content source is broadcast television or a streaming service (¶ 0089).
Crocker (US 2020/0035025 A1) teaches a trigger embedded into a watermark in a video frame of 2D video, which triggers the display of 3D content to the viewer (¶ 0037).
Hwang (US 2016/0269711 A1) teaches signaling to effectuate 2D/3D service switching (¶ 0142).
Nercessian et al., “A Generalized Set of Kernels for Edge and Line Detection,” Image Processing: Algorithms and Systems VII, Proc. of SPIE-IS&T Electronic Imaging, SPIE Vo. 7245, 2009. This publication explains that common edge detection techniques are sensitive to noise and that it is important to first smooth the image with a Gaussian filter (Gaussian blur) (Introduction).
Hofmann (US 2015/0109337 A1) teaches line detection and edge detection are synonymous in the art and are represented by Canny, Sobel, etc. edge detection algorithms (¶ 0077).
Sinha (US 2023/0101817 A1) teaches edge detection, for example Sobel filters or other edge detection kernels, can be used to extract straight lines and watermarks from images (¶ 0111).
Nakagawa (US 2019/0166357 A1) teaches a trigger signal for switching between 2D and 3D display modes (¶ 0089).
Eronen (US 2018/0082700 A1) teaches side information added to media data as a watermark (¶ 0062).
Kuraki (US 2009/0220076 A1) teaches, “The bound portions can be detected by Hough transform, utilizing the nature that the bound portions of an encrypted image are straight lines when the image is applied with an edge detecting filter (such as a Laplacian filter).” (¶ 0110). It also teaches size designation on rectangular watermark areas (e.g. ¶¶ 0008, 0079, 0082, 0084, 0087, etc.).
Reid (US 10,909,761 B1) teaches steganography tools used to embed 3D model metadata into pixels of video content for converting/displaying 2D content as 3D content (col. 3, ll. 40–43).
Wise (US 2013/0238901 A1) teaches using embedded digital watermark control to control converting 2D video to 3D video (e.g. ¶¶ 0010, 0043, and 0095).
Mayes (US 2023/0246864 A1) teaches, in a video conferencing application (e.g. ¶ 0001), 2D to 3D partial conversion of a portion of a segmented image (¶ 0033).
Park (US 2025/0037389 A1) teaches a 3D window displayed using the Java API framework based on 2D screen (¶ 0118).
Nakaoka (US 2014/0043534 A1) teaches a screen containing 3D display areas and 2D display areas (e.g. ¶ 0299 and Figs. 13–19).
Sonobe (US 2013/0194396 A1) teaches 3D display areas and 2D display areas on a display (e.g. ¶ 0023 and Fig. 3) and teaches the display control is realized by an application program or the like (¶ 0041).
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 extension fee 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 Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights