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 § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maslinkovskiy (US 2025/0024005).
Regarding Claims 1 and 12, Maslinkovskiy teaches a projection device (Figure 2; Projection System 200) comprising:
a processor (Figure 2; Processor 216) configured to control detection of a projection target (see Paragraph [0046]; wherein it is disclosed that the image processor 216 is a computing device adapted to processing image data from the camera to recognize objects in the image field 208),
specifying of a first region in which an obstacle (Figure 2; Person 220) is not present in the projection target and a second region in which the obstacle (Figure 2; Person 220) is present in the projection target based on a result of detecting the projection target (see Paragraph [0045]; wherein it is disclosed that the system 200 changes the projected image in the region 224 of the projected image that falls on the person 220. The region 224 is the result of applying a mask to that portion of the image that falls within the region 224. The mask can suppress light, dim the light, or project a different image in the region 224),
projection of a first projection image (Figure 2; Image Field 208) in a part or an entirety of the first region (see Paragraph [0045]; wherein it is disclosed that the projector 202 projects an image field 208 onto a surface 206 of some physical barrier 204), and
projection of a second projection image (Figure 2; Region 224) that is different from the first projection image (Figure 2; Image Field 208) and indicates that the obstacle (Figure 2; Person 220) is present in the projection target (see Paragraph [0045]; wherein it is disclosed that the system 200 changes the projected image in the region 224 of the projected image that falls on the person 220. The region 224 is the result of applying a mask to that portion of the image that falls within the region 224. The mask can suppress light, dim the light, or project a different image in the region 224).
Regarding Claim 2, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches the second projection image is projected in the second region (see Paragraph [0045]; wherein it is disclosed that the system 200 changes the projected image in the region 224 of the projected image that falls on the person 220. The region 224 is the result of applying a mask to that portion of the image that falls within the region 224. The mask can suppress light, dim the light, or project a different image in the region 224).
Regarding Claim 3, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches the second projection image is a line image that surrounds at least a part of the second region (see Paragraph [0045]; wherein it is disclosed that the system 200 changes the projected image in the region 224 of the projected image that falls on the person 220. The region 224 is the result of applying a mask to that portion of the image that falls within the region 224. The mask can suppress light, dim the light, or project a different image in the region 224).
Regarding Claim 6, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches detecting a color of the obstacle, wherein a color of the second projection image differs depending on the color of the obstacle (see Paragraph [0049]; wherein it is disclosed that a camera image processing function 606 is performed to recognize any objects in the image field of the projector, and the portion of the object in the image field, producing an output 608 in which the location of the object in the image field of the projector, as well as its position relative to the projector is identified in the camera view. Thus, the output 608 can include three dimensional metadata that describes the object recognized in the camera view and that a combiner function 614 then takes new source image data from the video source being projected and modifies it with the mask 612 to create a masked image 618 that is projected with the mask 612 corresponding to the location of the object in the projector's image field. As a result, the light projected onto the object is changed from what it would have been if the projector had projected the source image 616).
Regarding Claim 7, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches detecting a type of the obstacle, wherein a type of the second projection image differs depending on the type of the obstacle (see Paragraph [0049]; wherein it is disclosed that a camera image processing function 606 is performed to recognize any objects in the image field of the projector, and the portion of the object in the image field, producing an output 608 in which the location of the object in the image field of the projector, as well as its position relative to the projector is identified in the camera view. Thus, the output 608 can include three dimensional metadata that describes the object recognized in the camera view and that a combiner function 614 then takes new source image data from the video source being projected and modifies it with the mask 612 to create a masked image 618 that is projected with the mask 612 corresponding to the location of the object in the projector's image field. As a result, the light projected onto the object is changed from what it would have been if the projector had projected the source image 616).
Regarding Claim 8, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches adjusting a shape of the first projection image, wherein the second projection image is projected during the adjustment of the shape of the first projection image, and is not projected after a time point at which the adjustment of the shape of the first projection image is ended (see Figure 7 and Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 9, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches a projection mode of the second projection image changes during an adjustment of a shape of the first projection image (see Figure 7 and Paragraph [0051]).
Regarding Claim 10, Maslinkovskiy teaches the limitations of claim 1 as detailed above.
Maslinkovskiy further teaches a projection mode of the second projection image changes as time passes (see Figure 2 and Paragraph [0044]; wherein it is disclosed that the projection system 200 having real time object recognition and masking, in accordance with some embodiments. In general, the system 200 detects objects in the image field 208 of the projector 202, and can change the light being projected by the projector onto the recognized object(s). The light can be changed by reducing the light, projecting no light, or projecting a different image or image portion than a source image that would otherwise be projected onto the object).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 and 11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Regarding Claim 4, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require determining whether a size of the second region is larger than a size of a third region in the first region, the third region being a region in which the first projection image is projected, wherein a type of the second projection image differs depending on a magnitude relationship between the size of the second region and the size of the third region.
This limitation in combination with the limitations of claim 1 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Claim 5 would likewise be non-obvious over the prior art of record if the abovementioned amendment were made.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art of record, whether taken alone or in combination, fails to teach, suggest or render obvious the limitations which require performing a first determination as to whether the second projection image is indicated by an indicator; performing a second determination as to whether the indicator is performing a first operation; and changing a size of the first projection image such that the first projection image is projected in the first region and the second region when both a result of the first determination and a result of the second determination are positive.
This limitation in combination with the limitations of claim 1 would render the claim non-obvious over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II whose telephone number is (571)270-0648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am - 5pm 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, Minh-Toan Ton can be reached at (571) 272-2303. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER A LAMB II/Examiner, Art Unit 2882
