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
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.
Claims 21-23, 25-26, 30, 33, 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) as being anticipated by US 20180224662 to Yu (“Yu”) also cited in an IDS.
Regarding Claim 21: “A display device comprising:
a first display; … a second display disposed at a front side of the first display with a predetermined distance therebetween, and arranged in parallel to the first display; and (“a display device, comprising: a plurality of transparent display units configured to emit imaging light along a same direction and arranged in sequence with spaces therebetween along a light-emitting direction of the imaging light;” Yu, Paragraph 5.)
a controller configured to control the first display and the second display to alternately output a specific graphic object to realize an output of a three-dimensional image.” (For example “and a layer-by-layer scan circuit configured to respectively input a plurality of depth images of a same three-dimensional (3D) image into corresponding transparent display units in the plurality of transparent display units,” Yu, Paragraph 5.)
Regarding Claim 22: “The display device of claim 21, wherein the controller … does not output the specific graphic object to the second display when the specific graphic object is output to the first display, and … does not output the specific graphic object to the first display when the specific graphic object is output to the second display.” (The claim does not define the specific graphic object. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, each display displays a different image to represent image objects viewable at different depths. Prior art teaches: “respectively input a plurality of depth images of a same three-dimensional (3D) image into corresponding transparent display units in the plurality of transparent display units, … This mode can convert different depths of objects in the plurality of depth images based on the same 3D image into different distances between the plurality of transparent display units and the viewer” Yu, Paragraph 5, 24, 34.)
Regarding Claim 23: “The display device of claim 21, wherein the controller outputs the specific graphic object in the same size when the specific graphic object is output to the first display and when the specific graphic object is output to the second display.” (“For example, display regions of the plurality of transparent display units have a same size,” where each region displays a specific graphic as noted in Claim 21. Yu, Paragraph 11. )
Regarding Claim 25: “The display device of claim 21, wherein the controller outputs the specific graphic object at a corresponding position based on a direction perpendicularly penetrating through the first display and the second display.” (“as illustrated in FIG. 3, a first transparent display unit 31, a second transparent display unit 32, a third transparent display unit 33 and a fourth transparent display unit 34 emit imaging light along the same direction (as illustrated by arrowheads in FIG. 3) and are arranged in sequence with spaces therebetween along a direction opposite to the propagation direction of the imaging light,” Yu, Paragraph 39 and Fig. 3.)
Regarding Claim 26: “The display device of claim 21, wherein the first display and the second display have the same output size.” (“For example, display regions of the plurality of transparent display units have a same size,” where each region displays a specific graphic as noted in Claim 21. Yu, Paragraph 11.)
Regarding Claim 30: “The display device of claim 21, wherein
the controller sets a region in the first display to have a smaller size than an output screen of the second display, and ((“For instance, the FG may include objects such as a steering wheel, a pedal and instruments of the vehicle,” all objects occupying a region in a screen and smaller than the size of the screen. Lu, Paragraph 38 and Fig. 2.)
outputs the specific graphic object within the region.” (“For instance, the FG may include objects such as a steering wheel, a pedal and instruments of the vehicle,” exemplifying objects that occupy a region on a screen. Lu, Paragraph 38 and Fig. 2.)
Regarding Claim 33: “The display device of claim 30, wherein a size of the specific graphic object decreases as the size of the region decreases.” (In Yu, Fig. 2, the size of the region corresponds to the size of the object.)
Regarding Claim 40: “The display device of claim 21, wherein the second display is a transparent display.” (“a display device, comprising: a plurality of transparent display units configured” Yu, Paragraph 5.)
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 24, 34-35, 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180224662 to Yu (“Yu”) also cited in an IDS in view of US 20170085834 to Kim (“Kim2”).
Regarding Claim 24: “The display device of claim 21, wherein the controller outputs the specific graphic object in a first size when the specific graphic object is output to the first display, and outputs the specific graphic object in a second size larger than the first size when the specific graphic object is output to the second display.” (“when an object in the depth image is closer to a camera in the shooting process, the transparent display unit for displaying the depth image provided with the object is closer to the viewer in the case of 3D display.” Yu, Paragraph 34. Naturally, the objects displayed to be closer to the viewer must appear larger on the display than if those objects were displayed to appear further away. For illustration of closer objects appearing larger on display, see Kim2, Figs. 9, 10.)
Regarding Claim 34: “The display device of claim 21 , further comprising:
a transmitter/receiver configured to perform communication with an external display; (“the signal source may also acquire relevant information of different depth images through an external device,” which implies a transmitter or receiver that performs this function. Yu, Paragraph 60.)
Cumulatively, Kim2 explicitly teaches this feature in the context of 3D image displays: “For example, the two image display apparatuses 100 and 120 may perform direct communication … The communication network 110 includes all wired/wireless communication networks.” Kim2 Paragraphs 50-51, 58-59, and Figs. 1-2.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Yu to use a transmitter or receiver configured to perform communication with an external display as taught in Kim2, in order to use the displays in communication terminals such as video telephony terminals. See Kim2 Paragraphs 3, 50-51, 58-59, and Figs. 1-2.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
a camera configured to photograph a user located in a front direction of the display.” (“the signal source may include a planar image acquisition device such as a color camera … a 3D image of a surrounding scene of a vehicle may be directly acquired by the signal source and processed to achieve 3D display with good stereo effect,” which includes imaging a driver in front direction of the display. See Yu, Paragraphs 59, 61. Kim2 provides a more detailed embodiment: “wherein the first image display apparatus transmits a first image including a photographed image of a first user to the second image display apparatus” Kim2, paragraph 13. See statement of motivation above.)
Regarding Claim 35: “The display device of claim 34, wherein
the controller performs a video call connection with the external display through the transmitter/receiver, and (“the video telephony system including: a first image display apparatus and a second image display apparatus which makes a video call with the first image display apparatus, wherein the first image display apparatus transmits a first image including a photographed image of a first user to the second image display apparatus,” Kim2, Paragraph 13. See statement of motivation in Claim 34.)
outputs an object corresponding to an external user photographed on the external display to any one of the first display and the second display.” (“wherein the first image display apparatus transmits a first image including a photographed image of a first user to the second image display apparatus,” Kim2, Paragraph 13. See statement of motivation in Claim 34.)
Regarding Claim 37: “The display device of claim 21, further
comprising a sensor to sense a user's motion, (See the camera in Kim2 Paragraphs 119-120, 126 that senses when a user moves or changes location. See statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
wherein the controller outputs a part of a background image to the first display, and … changes the part of the background image output to the first display into another part, in response to the user' s motion being sensed by the sensor.” (“For example, in response to the user moving backward from the camera during a video call, a virtual background image at a long distance (Far) as shown in FIG. 10 may be extracted and displayed for the user, and, in response to the user moving toward the camera, a virtual background image at a short distance (Near) as shown in FIG. 10 may be extracted and displayed for the user.” Kim2, Paragraphs 119-120. See statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
Regarding Claim 38: “The display device of claim 37, wherein while a first part of the background image is being output to the first display, when the sensor senses that the user moves in a first direction, the controller outputs to the first display a part that is located in a second direction opposite to the first direction based on the first part of the background image.” (“In response to the user 1 1090 changing the location from the right to the left and moving backward, the first image display apparatus 100 displays the second image 1110 in which the point of view of the background changes from the right to the left according to the change in the location of the user 1 although the user 2 1080 is fixed. Accordingly, the user 1 views the second image 1110 which has the virtual background image changed in a view 1104 according to the change in his/her location, and thus can enjoy a realistic video call.” Kim2, Paragraph 122. See statement of motivation in Claim 21.)
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180224662 to Yu (“Yu”) also cited in an IDS in view of US 20170085834 to Kim (“Kim2”) and in view of US 20150325055 to Balakrishna (“Balakrishna”).
Regarding Claim 27: “The display device of claim 21, further comprising a case configured to surround edges of the first display and the second display.”
Yu and Kim2 do not describe a case for the display to enclose the display elements in the claimed manner. However, it is well understood that display elements must be enclosed in some manner in order to be usable as one display device. See Balakrishna, Paragraph 3.
Balakrishna teaches this feature in the context of 3D displays: “the display apparatus providing virtual 3D images comprises of some combination of the following elements: An enclosure with one or more open viewing sides, with or without a rear or sides walls; Light source to illuminate parts of the enclosure or objects placed inside the enclosure;” Balakrishna, Paragraphs 13-16, 21.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Yu and Kim2 to use a case to enclose the display device including the edges of the display panels of the display device as taught in Balakrishna, in order to combine the display elements into one usable display device. See, Balakrishna, Paragraphs 3, 13-16, 21.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 28: “The display device of claim 27, wherein lightings are disposed at corners of the case.” (“For example, the plurality of transparent display units are all transparent organic light-emitting diode (OLED) display units or transparent polymer light-emitting diode (PLED) display units,” which are disposed in the corners of the displays. Yu, Paragraphs 14, 62, and Fig. 4. See similarly in Balakrish, Paragraphs 15, 21, 59.)
Regarding Claim 29: “The display device of claim 28, wherein the lightings output light with darker brightness from the second display toward the first display.” (This claim limitation is not clear. Prior art teaches: “comprising: a plurality of transparent display units configured to emit imaging light along a same direction and arranged in sequence” thus earlier displays in the sequence emit light toward the later displays, which naturally gets less bright after passing each subsequent display structure. See Yu, Paragraphs 5 and Fig. 3.)
Claim 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180224662 to Yu (“Yu”) also cited in an IDS in view of US 20170085834 to Kim (“Kim2”) and in view of US 20130141551 to Kim (Kim) also cited in an IDS.
Regarding Claim 36: “The display device of claim 35, wherein the controller outputs to the second display the object corresponding to the external user photographed on the external display while the external user's voice is output, and … outputs to the first display the object while the external user's voice is not output.” (“wherein the first image display apparatus transmits a first image including a photographed image of a first user to the second image display apparatus,” at the appropriate depth. See, Kim2, Paragraph 13 and Fig. 9. See statement of motivation in Claim 34.
However, Yu and Kim2 do not discuss changing the display of the object display based on detecting a user’s voice.
Kim teaches this feature in the context of 3D displays: “the controller 180 may change at least one of the display size of subtitles and a 3D effect (three-dimensional depth value) according to the strength of a sound corresponding to the audio data.” Kim, Paragraph 176.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Yu and Kim2 to vary the depth at which the video object is inserted on display based on the voice output as taught in Kim, in order to provide a graphical effect “to allow the user to recognize information regarding how strong the sound is or how weak the sound is by intuition.” See Kim, Paragraph 177.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.)
Claims 31-32, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180224662 to Yu (“Yu”) also cited in an IDS in view of US 20170085834 to Kim (“Kim2”) and in view of US 20200368616 to Delamont (“Delamont”).
Regarding Claim 39: “The display device of claim 38, wherein the controller determines a speed at which the first part changes to the second part to correspond to a speed at which the user moves.”
Note that “the user 1 views the second image 1110 which has the virtual background image changed in a view 1104 according to the change in his/her location, and thus can enjoy a realistic video call.” Kim2, Paragraph 122. Thus, the change in the display image corresponds directly to the change in user location, and thus the rate of change of the display tracks the rate of change in the user’s location as well. See statement of motivation in Claim 21.
Yu and Kim2 do not teach determining the user’s speed.
Delamont teaches this feature in the context of 3D displays and user interaction: “The invention may include one or more sensors which determine(s) at least one of positional, speed and acceleration characteristics of at least one real-world entity in the real-world space.” For example, based on “spatial mapping generated mesh data generated from the real-world images and video captured from the user's camera(s)” Delamont, Paragraphs 20, 95.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Yu and Kim2 to determine a speed at which the user moves by various methods including determining a speed at which the user moves in a video captured by a camera, as taught in Delamont, in order to change the displayed content to correspond to the user’s motion to maintain a correct perspective. See Kim2, Paragraph 122 and Delamont, Paragraph 94.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 31: “The display device of claim 30, wherein the controller displays a guide image provided to assist an identification of the region on the first display.” (“The system may augment virtual images over the video capture of the real-world from IR Laser Gun Apparatus 47, camera to highlight targets in the line of sight based o n a computation o f the other real-world game objects, users, AI Characters … and the target objects positions relative to the users … highlighting of geometric structure outlines” Delamont, Paragraphs 510, 757. See statement of motivation in Claim 36
Regarding Claim 32: “The display device of claim 31, wherein the guide image includes a figure formed to identify the region, and a plurality of lines drawn toward vertices of the first display.” (Delamont does not teach this specific graphic for highlighting a region, however Delamont teaches that various graphics can be used to highlight the region, for example: “highlighting of geometric structure outlines … Specular lighting may be used here to highlight … diffuse or specular lighting effects maybe applied … highlighted by colour etc. … A different outline shape over the target may be shown as augmented over the video frames” Delamont, Paragraphs 757, 1266-1267, 1746. Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a highlight or an outline graphic to identify a region in the displayed video that displays an object of interest. See Delamont, Paragraphs 757, 1266-1267, 1746. See statement of motivation in Claim 36.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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 (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights