DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
In light of the changes made to the specification, the objection pertaining to a non-descriptive title is withdrawn.
In light of the changes made to claim 7, the objection pertaining to minor informalities is withdrawn.
In light of the changes made to claims 2, 5, 8, 12, 16 and 19, the rejections pertaining to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 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) 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0103805) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0160240).
In regards to claim 1, Huang teaches an electronic apparatus comprising:
a display configured to be operated in a three-dimensional (3D) mode and a two-dimensional (2D) mode (See ¶0007 and 0010 in view of FIG. 5-7 wherein a 3D display system captures an image of a user and determines their face and sight direction in order to determine whether to display portions of the display in 3D or 2D);
at least one camera to capture an image in front of the display (See ¶0007 and 0010 in view of FIG. 3-5);
a memory storing at least one instruction (See ¶0041); and
at least one processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to (See ¶0040-0041):
identify whether a user is positioned in front of the display based on the captured image, based on the user being identified as being positioned in front of the display, identify whether a user gaze is directed toward a front of the display, based on the user gaze being identified as being directed toward the front of the display, control the display to be operated in the 3D mode, and based on the user being identified as not being positioned in front of the display, or based on the user gaze being identified as not being directed toward the front of the display, control the display to be operated in the 2D mode (See at least ¶0007 and 0010 in view of FIG. 1 and 3-7 wherein the user is imaged by the camera to determine their position, facial direction and gaze, accordingly the portions of the display which are indeed being watched/gazed by the user are to be set in 3D mode, while areas of the user gaze which are not directed towards the front of the display are to be operated in 2D mode), and
wherein the display is controlled to switch between operating in one of the 2D mode and the 3D mode for a duration in which a content is to be displayed by the display based on the user gaze identified (See ¶0038-0039 in view of FIG. 6-8 wherein the 3D rendering mode is dynamically adjust according to the field of view).
Huang, however, fails to teach wherein the display is controlled to switch between operating in one of the 2D mode and the 3D mode for a duration in which a content is to be displayed by the display based on the user gaze identified and a content feature of the content for the duration.
That is, although Huang teaches controlling operation of portions of the screens to be 2D or 3D dynamically according to user gaze, Huang fails to also take into consideration of the content features for such a determination of 2D or 3D display.
In a similar endeavor Lee teaches wherein the display is controlled to switch between operating in one of the 2D mode and the 3D mode for a duration in which a content is to be displayed by the display based on the user gaze identified and a content feature of the content for the duration (See ¶0064-0066 wherein the switching between 2D video and 3D video may be dependent upon the content feature of the content during a duration, such as when 2D advertisement is included in the 3D video for a duration, this is taken in view of Huang’s teaching of [dynamic] switching between 3D and 2D video data as described above).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Lee into Huang because it allows for further adjustment of 3D or 2D display upon what specific content is also being displayed, including advertising or headlines which may or may not have 2D or 3D versions enabled --- such as when advertisement is purely in 2D, thus allowing for a more adjustable system.
In regards to claim 6, Huang teaches the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to, while the display is being operated in the 3D mode:
based on the user being identified as not being positioned in front of the display, or based on the user gaze being identified as not being directed toward the front of the display, control the display to switch to the 2D mode (See FIG. 5-7).
In regards to claim 7, Huang teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to, while the the display is being operated in the 3D mode:
based on the user gaze being identified as being directed toward the front of the display, identify whether content to be displayed is stereoscopic content for each content duration, and
control the display to be switched to the 3D mode based on the content to be displayed being identified as the stereoscopic content (See FIG. 5-7 in view of ¶0026 which describes that the image stream may be of 3D rendering, and as such would be rendered in 3D given the conditions as per FIG. 5-7 previously described).
In regards to claim 9, Huang teaches the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
identify the user as being positioned in front of the display based on a specific body part of the user being included in the captured image or a user body region that has a predetermined ratio or more is identified as being included in the captured image (See FIG. 1 and 3-7).
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Huang in view of Lee.
In regards to claims 15 and 20 the claims are rejected under the same basis as claims 1 and 6, respectively, by Huang in view of Lee, wherein the non-transitory computer readable medium is taught as seen in ¶0041.
Claim(s) 2, 8, 12 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0103805) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0160240) and Kitaura et al. (“Kit”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2003/0126919).
In regards to claim 2, Huang teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
based on the user gaze being identified as being directed toward the front of the display, identify a probability that the content to be displayed is stereoscopic content for each content duration, control the display to be operated in the 3D mode in the duration in where the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is a threshold value or more, and control the display to be operated in the 2D mode in the duration in where the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is less than the threshold value, wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of a feature of the display, the content feature, or a user context.
In a similar endeavor Kit teaches based on the user gaze being identified as being directed toward the front of the display, identify a probability that the content to be displayed is stereoscopic content for each content duration, control the display to be operated in the 3D mode in the duration in where the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is a threshold value or more (See for example ¶0332-0336 wherein the probability is based on the accumulative intensity value and the threshold is taught as that which enables 3-D display, it is noted by the examiner that having the threshold being surpassed when being either above or below is merely a design choice), and control the display to be operated in the 2D mode in the duration in where the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is less than the threshold value (See for example ¶0332-0336 wherein if the threshold is surpassed, then 2-D images are displayed),
wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of a feature of the display, the content feature, or a user context (See ¶0332-0336).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kit into Huang because it allows for a reduction in eye strain for the user based on accumulative intensity of 3-D images being displayed as described in at least ¶0332-0336.
In regards to claim 8, Huang fails to teach the apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
identify a probability that the content to be displayed is stereoscopic content for each content duration, identify whether the user gaze is directed toward the front of the display based on the captured image in the each content duration in which the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is a threshold value or more, control the display to be operated in the 3D mode based on the user gaze is identified as being directed toward the front of the display and the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is the threshold value or more, and control the display to be operated in the 2D mode in the each content duration in which the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is less than the threshold value, wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of a feature of the display, the content feature, or a user context.
In a similar endeavor Kit teaches identify a probability that the content to be displayed is stereoscopic content for each content duration, identify whether the user gaze is directed toward the front of the display based on the captured image in the each content duration in which the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is a threshold value or more, control the display to be operated in the 3D mode based on the user gaze is identified as being directed toward the front of the display and the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is the threshold value or more (See for example ¶0332-0336 wherein the probability is based on the accumulative intensity value and the threshold is taught as that which enables 3-D display, it is noted by the examiner that having the threshold being surpassed when being either above or below is merely a design choice), and control the display to be operated in the 2D mode in the each content duration in which the identified probability of the stereoscopic content is less than the threshold value (See for example ¶0332-0336 wherein if the threshold is surpassed, then 2-D images are displayed),
wherein the threshold value is determined based on at least one of a feature of the display, the content feature, or a user context (See ¶0332-0336).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kit into Huang because it allows for a reduction in eye strain for the user based on accumulative intensity of 3-D images being displayed as described in at least ¶0332-0336.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Huang in view of Lee and Kit.
In regards to claim 16, the claims is rejected under the same basis as claim 2 by Huang in view of Lee and Kit.
Claim(s) 3, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0103805) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0160240) and Kitaura et al. (“Kit”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2003/0126919), in further view of Sibley et al. (“Sibley”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0117211).
In regards to claim 3, Huang fails to teach the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: input the content to be displayed into a trained artificial intelligence model trained for each content duration, and identify the probability that the content to be displayed is the stereoscopic content based on information output from the trained artificial intelligence model.
In a similar endeavor Sibley teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: input the content to be displayed into a trained artificial intelligence model trained for each content duration, and identify the probability that the content to be displayed is the stereoscopic content based on information output from the trained artificial intelligence model (See ¶0075).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Sibley into Huang because it allows for the system to compare and correspond features or portions of one or more images in order to facilitate detection, identification and treatment of objects within 3D and 3D images as described in ¶0075.
In regards to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Huang in view of Lee and Kit, in further view of Sibley.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 3 by Huang in view of Lee and Kit, in further view of Sibley.
Claim(s) 4, 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0103805) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0160240) and Kitaura et al. (“Kit”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2003/0126919), in further view of Kim et al. (“Kim”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0132688).
In regards to claim 4, Huang fails to teach the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: input the captured image into a trained artificial intelligence model, and identify whether the user gaze is directed toward the front of the display based on information output from the trained artificial intelligence model.
In a similar endeavor Kim teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the at least one instruction to: input the captured image into a trained artificial intelligence model, and identify whether the user gaze is directed toward the front of the display based on information output from the trained artificial intelligence model (See ¶0057-0058 in view of FIG. 4 and 5A of Kim wherein images of the user are captured, from here the gaze information is used as input into a neural network to identify where the user is viewing, this is taken in view of Huang’s teachings of FIG. 5-7).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Kim into Huang because it allows for the improvement of video quality in targeted areas by which are being viewed by the user, considered as attention regions, as well as regions outside of the attention region receiving less processing power as described in at least ¶0057, thus increasing overall efficiency and lowering processing requirements of the overall display image.
In regards to claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 4 by Huang in view of Lee and Kit, in further view of Kim.
In regards to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 4 by Huang in view of Lee and Kit, in further view of Kim.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. (“Huang”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2022/0103805) in view of Lee et al. (“Lee”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2014/0160240) and Koo (U.S. PG Publication No. 2021/0373702).
In regards to claim 10, Huang fails to teach the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the display is implemented as a light field display including a lenticular lens array, and the at least one processor is configured to control the display to be operated either in the 3D mode or the 2D mode by adjusting a voltage applied to the lenticular lens array included in the light field display.
In a similar endeavor Koo teaches wherein the display is implemented as a light field display including a lenticular lens array, and the at least one processor is configured to control the display to be operated either in the 3D mode or the 2D mode by adjusting a voltage applied to the lenticular lens array included in the light field display (See ¶0117-0119 and 0159).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Koo into Huang because it allows for the switching of 3D and 2D displaying by simply applying an appropriate voltage which changes an effective refractive index as described in at least ¶0159.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 19 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights