DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are amended. Claims 1-6 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, the limitation “a display control unit configured to control, among contents displayed on the first display device and the second display device, only an object that is a target of work executed in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device” should be “a display control unit configured to control, among contents displayed on the first display device and the second display device, only an object that is [[a target of work executed]] to be operated on in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device”.
As per claim 3, the limitation “a configuration information storage unit configured to store information indicating which of the user’s eyes has higher visual acuity” should be “a configuration information storage unit configured to store information indicating which of the user’s eyes has a higher visual acuity”.
As per claim 4, the limitation “the first and the second cameras” should be “the first camera and the second camera”, “the first and the second images” should be “the first image and the second image”.
As per claim 5, the limitation “a step of, by a computer, controlling, among contents displayed on a first display device that displays an image to one eye of a user and a second display device that displays an image to an opposite eye of the user, only an object that is a target of work executed in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device” should be “a step [[of,]] performed by a computer, of controlling[[,]] among contents displayed on a first display device that displays an image to one eye of a user and a second display device that displays an image to an opposite eye of the user, only an object that is [[a target of work executed]] to be operated on in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device”.
As per claim 6, the limitation “only an object that is a target of work executed in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display devices device” should be “only an object that is [[a target of work executed]] to be operated on in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display devices device”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the user’s eyes", “the transparency of the object“, “the eye of the user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the transparency of a region of the object“. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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)(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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jarvenpaa (US 20150042679).
As per claim 1, Jarvenpaa discloses a visual function training system (Abstract; Fig. 1, #100; [0031]) comprising:
a first display device (Fig. 7, #501) configured to display an image to one eye of a user ([0091]; [0100]);
a second display device (#501) configured to display an image to an opposite eye of the user ([0091]; [0100]); and
a display control unit configured to control, among contents displayed on the first display device (#501) and the second display device (#501), only an object (Figs. 4B-C, #412-413) that is a target of work executed in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device (#501) and the second display device (#501; [0046]-[0052]; [0087]-[0090]; where a display control unit is inherently present),
wherein the object (#412-413) is rendered on each of the first display device (#501) and the second display device (#501) so as to remain visually perceivable on each of the first display device and the second display device ([0088]).
As per claim 5, Jarvenpaa discloses a visual function training method (Abstract) comprising:
a step of, by a computer (Fig. 1, #101; [0032]), controlling, among contents displayed on a first display device (Fig. 7, #501) that displays an image to one eye of a user and a second display device (#501) that displays an image to an opposite eye of the user ([0091][; [0100]), only an object (Figs. 4B-C, #412-413) that is a target of work executed in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device ([0046]-[0052]; [0087]-[0090]),
wherein the object (#412-413) is rendered on each of the first display device (#501) and the second display device (#501) so as to remain visually perceivable on each of the first display device and the second display device ([0088]).
As per claim 6, Jarvenpaa discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a program that, when executed by a computer (Fig. 1, #101), causes the computer to perform a step of controlling ([0032]-[0035]), among contents displayed on a first display device (Fig. 7, #501) that displays an image to one eye of a user and a second display device (#501) that displays an image to an opposite eye of the user ([0091]; [0100]), only an object (Figs. 4B-C, #412-413) that is a target of work executed in response to an input by the user, to have different transparencies on the first display device and the second display devices device ([0046]-[0052]; [0087]-[0090]),
wherein the object (#412-413) is rendered on each of the first display device (#501) and the second display device (#501) so as to remain visually perceivable on each of the first display device and the second display device ([0088]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvenpaa in view of Worley (US 9766462).
As per claim 2, Jarvenpaa discloses the visual function training system according to claim 1, wherein:
the object is a virtual object ([0088]).
However, Jarvenpaa does not teach the display control unit displays the object on the first display device and the second display device so that the object is displayed in three dimensions to the user and with different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device.
Worley teaches the display control unit displays the object on the first display device and the second display device so that the object is displayed in three dimensions to the user and with different transparencies on the first display device and the second display device (col. 4, line 8-25; col. 5, line 16-34; col. 6, line 9-36).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the active shutter 3D system disclosed by Worley to the system of Jarvenpaa so as to provide a technique of displaying stereoscopic 3D images.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvenpaa in view of Hwang (US 20140333521).
As per claim 3, Jarvenpaa discloses the visual function training system according to claim 1.
However, Jarvenpaa does not teach a configuration information storage unit configured to store information indicating which of the user's eyes has higher visual acuity,
wherein the display control unit is configured to control to increase the transparency of the object displayed on the first display device or the second display device that displays the image to the eye of the user indicated by the information stored in the configuration information storage unit.
Hwang teaches a configuration information storage unit configured to store information indicating which of the user's eyes has higher visual acuity ([0043]-[0044]; [0070]),
wherein the display control unit is configured to control to increase the transparency of the object displayed on the first display device or the second display device that displays the image to the eye of the user indicated by the information stored in the configuration information storage unit ([0047]; [0049]-[0051]; [0070]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the system of Jarvenpaa configured according to Hwang so as to change a display property of the information area based at least in part of the activity of the at least one pupil (Hwang: [0004]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarvenpaa in view of Thompson (US 20120086624).
As per claim 4, Jarvenpaa discloses the visual function training system according to claim 1.
However, Jarvenpaa does not teach a first camera and a second camera configured to capture a field of vision of the user; and
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a first image and a second image captured by the first and the second cameras,
wherein the display control unit detects the object from the first and the second images and increases the transparency of a region of the object in the first image or the second image.
Thompson teaches a first camera and a second camera configured to capture a field of vision of the user ([0028]; [0030]); and
an image acquisition unit configured to acquire a first image and a second image captured by the first and the second cameras ([0028]-[0031]),
wherein the display control unit detects the object from the first and the second images and increases the transparency of a region of the object in the first image or the second image ([0022]-[0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included the cameras disclosed by Thompson to the system of Jarvenpaa so as to provide one or more digital cameras disposed on the heads up display to record images of the background.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5-6 have been considered but are moot because of the new grounds of rejection as presented above.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments on page 8 in the Remarks, “The present application is expressly directed to a visual function training system for, inter alia, amblyopia treatment (see, e.g., non-limiting paragraph [0010] of the As-Filed Specification: "training can be provided for users with amblyopia"). Worley, by contrast, is directed entirely to immersion control for media consumption with no disclosure or suggestion of any visual function training or amblyopia treatment purpose”.
However, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a visual function training system for amblyopia treatment, training can be provided for users with amblyopia, amblyopia treatment purpose) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, the Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 1 and 5-6. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation of “visual function training system” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
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 Nelson Lam whose telephone number is (571)272-8044. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm-9pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571 272-7776. 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.
/Nelson Lam/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
/KE XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights