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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of information disclosure statement(s) filed 05 May 2025.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made of applicant arguments/Remarks made in amendment in which the following is noted: claims 1 – 50 are cancelled and claims 51 – 70 are newly added. Claims 51 – 70 are currently pending and an Office action on the merits follows.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 51 – 58, 60 – 61, and 64 - 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, Amitabha (Patent number: US 10, 869, 026 B2), hereafter Gupta, in view of Bell et al; (Publication number: US 2017/0171538 A1), hereafter Bell.
Regarding claim 51:
Gupta discloses a stereoscopic imaging system configured to reduce visual strain on a user (Gupta ABSTRACT; Figure 1A – Figure 2), comprising:
two cameras (Gutpta Col 6 line 39 – 41; The HMD 200 includes one or more cameras 253. The cameras 253 are capable of acquiring camera data such as images in the form of still photographs and/or motion video.), wherein said two images are fully overlapping (Gupta Col 10 lines 47 – 50; More specifically, a first imaging unit and a second imaging unit, which have overlapping fields of view, may be mounted on the HMD and directed towards scenes in front of a user wearing the HMD.) when said two cameras are both positioned at a designed working distance and are focused to said designed working distance (Gupta Col6 line 44 – 51; … In at least some embodiments, the HMD 200 includes two cameras 253 configured to capture left and right viewpoint images of a real-world scene … As a result, the cameras 253 may provide suitable images for generating binocular views of a scene; The positioning of the cameras at a designed working distance and corresponding focus are understood to be disclosed since the one or more cameras of the HMD device are understood to capture a binocular view of a scene);
a display (Gupta Col 5 lines 14 – 17 … In other embodiments, two separate display screens may be provided, with a display screen disposed in front of each of a user's left and right eyes.), configured to present said two images to said user as a stereoscopic image (Gupta Col 11 43 – 45; … In particular, an HMD may be used to generate the illusion of depth in an image by means of stereopsis), wherein said two images are perceived by said user viewing said images via said display as originating from two gazing directions when said two cameras are both positioned at said designed working distance and are focused to said designed working distance (Gupta Col 11 43 – 45; … In particular, an HMD may be used to generate the illusion of depth in an image by means of stereopsis. Binocular/Stereopsis views are presented based on designed working distance and focus of HMD device); and
a processor, coupled with said two cameras and with said display (Gupta Figure 2 processors 240 is coupled of the one or more cameras 253 and display 204), configured to:
Gupta does not disclose the stereoscopic imaging system for use in a surgical application and the two cameras configured to capture two images of a surgical field; and processor configured to: detect than an overlap between said two images has changed; align said two images by shifting said two images; and stream said aligned images to said display, wherein said shifting ensures that when said two aligned images are viewed by said user via said display, overlapping parts of said two images are perceived by said user as originating from said two gazing directions.
However, Bell discloses an AR display with adjustable stereo overlap zone. More particularly, Bell discloses a stereoscopic imaging system for use in a surgical application and the two cameras configured to capture two images of a surgical field (Bell [0062] However, certain head mounted display devices may be manufactured for specialized applications … Other professions, such as surgeons, typically focus at distances shorter than 2 meters, for example 1 meter, when operating. Head mounted displays manufactured for such specialized use may have their focal distance set at 1 meter. Other focal distances are contemplated; see also [0071]); and
Processor (Bell Figure 4 processor 240; see also [0071] As noted, instead of or in addition to the one-time calibration process at manufacturing of the head mounted display device 2, the display shift algorithm may be implemented dynamically in the runtime rendering process during use of the head mounted display device 2. As one possible reason for doing this, it is conceivable that, instead of having a fixed focal plane, embodiments of the head mounted display device may have a dynamic focal plane. For example, different software applications used with the head mounted display device 2 may set a focal plane distance that is optimized for that application. As noted above, some specialized uses include flying or surgery, and a single head mounted display device 2 may be used across these disciplines using a focal plane that may be set by an application running on the processing unit 4.) configured to:
detect than an overlap between said two images has changed (Bell Figure 13 406 … In step 406, the left and right image overlap may be determined for some desired, predefined distance);
align said two images by shifting said two images (Bell Figure 13 410; [0067] Referring again to step 408, the display shift algorithm checks whether there are sufficient border pixels to shift the image horizontally and/or vertically the number of pixels determined in step 406 so that the images 148L and 148R completely overlap. If so, the image is shifted horizontally and/or vertically in step 410.); and
stream said aligned images to said display, wherein said shifting ensures that when said two aligned images are viewed by said user via said display, overlapping parts of said two images are perceived by said user as originating from said two gazing directions (Bell [0069] After the one-time calibration process shown in FIG. 13, the displayed left and right images 148L and 148R may thereafter display on the defined focal plane; see also [0071] calibration processes maybe performed dynamically and calibrated (display-shifted) images presented on the displays creating stereopsis effect).
It would have been obvious to modify Gupta such that the stereoscopic imaging system for use in a surgical application and the two cameras configured to capture two images of a surgical field; and processor configured to: detect than an overlap between said two images has changed; align said two images by shifting said two images; and stream said aligned images to said display, wherein said shifting ensures that when said two aligned images are viewed by said user via said display, overlapping parts of said two images are perceived by said user as originating from said two gazing directions, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate allowing for a real-time adjustable stereo overlap zone, thereby reducing user discomfort during operation of the device.
Regarding claim 52:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, further comprising: a first mechanism, coupled with said two cameras and with said processor, for adjusting a focus of said two cameras, wherein said first mechanism enables said focus to be changed by at least one of: automatically; manually by said user and automatically and manually by said user (Gupta Col 7 lines 9 – 19).
Regarding claim 53:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, further comprising a second mechanism, coupled with said two camera and with said processor, for adjusting an actual working distance of said to cameras, wherein said second mechanism enables said actual working distance to be adjusted by at least one of: automatically; manually by said user; and automatically and manually by said user (Gupta Col 7 lines 9 – 19 … A user of the HMD 200 may manually control an actuator/moto to change the relative position or line of sight of an associated camera).
Regarding claim 54:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 52, wherein said overlap changes are due to a change in focus of said two cameras (Gupta Col 7 lines 9 – 19; change in line of sight of camera changes vergence distance or focus of the cameras), said detection being based on detecting an adjustment of said focus of said two cameras (Bell [0074] processing unit dynamically receives set focal plane distance).
Regarding claim 55:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 53, wherein said overlap changes are due to a change in actual working distance of said two cameras (Gupta Col 7 lines 9 – 19; change in relative position (working distance) of camera changes vergence distance or focus of the cameras), said detection being based on detecting an adjustment of said focus of said two cameras (Bell [0074] processing unit dynamically receives set focal plane distance).
Regarding claim 56:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein at least one of said detection and said shifting is based on calculating boundaries of overlapping portions of said two images captured by said two cameras (Gupta Col 12 lines 8 – 14; matching common regions of interest).
Regarding claim 57:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 52, wherein said processor shifts said two images continuously during focus adjustment of said two cameras (Bell [0071] dynamically executing shift algorithm).
Regarding claim 58:
Gupta (in view of Bell) does not disclose the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 52, wherein said processor shifts said two images after a focus adjustment is complete.
However, it would have been obvious to further modify Gupta (in view of Bell) wherein said processor shifts said two images after a focus adjustment is complete, as claimed, because such a combination would have been obvious to try. One skilled in the art would recognize one of two possibilities of shifting – during focus adjustment or after during focus adjustment. As such, claim 58 is rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 60:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein said system allowed said user to either enable or disable said shifting (Gupta Col 7 lines 14 – 19; A user of the HMD 200 may manually control an actuator/motor to change the relative position or line of sight of an associated camera, or the actuator/motor may be engaged automatically in response to predetermined triggers (e.g. detection of eye movement via gaze tracking. A manual control allows the user to enable or disable subsequent shifting based on presence or absence of manual inputs).
Regarding claim 61:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein when said processor streams said two aligned images to said display, said processor streams only part of said two aligned images (Gupta Figure 4 406; sub-images are selected).
Regarding claim 64:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein said two gazing directions are selected from the list consisting of: identical gazing directions; or different gazing directions (Gupta Col 11 lines 40 – 43 – binocular vision implies different gazing directions).
Regarding claim 65:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein said display is selected from the list consisting of: a head mounted display (HMD); and a 3D screen (Gupta Figure HMD 100).
Regarding claim 66:
Claim 66 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 51.
Regarding claim 67:
Claim 67 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 52.
Regarding claim 68:
Claim 68 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 53.
Regarding claim 69:
Claim 69 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claim 56.
Claim(s) 59 and 70 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, Amitabha (Patent number: US 10, 869, 026 B2), hereafter Gupta, in view of Bell et al; (Publication number: US 2017/0171538 A1), hereafter Bell, in view of Ohta, Keizo (Publication number: US 2011/0032252 A1), hereafter Ohta.
Regarding claim 59:
Gupta (in view of Bell) discloses the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 58, wherein said shifting is performed gradually such that said user does not experience abrupt changes in said presented two images to said user.
However, Ohta discloses a storage medium storing display control program for controlling display capable of providing three-dimensional display and information processing system. More particularly, Ohta discloses (Ohta [0201] adjustment of the stereoscopic depth by means of the display position is made, so that the stereoscopic depth is changed in such a manner that allows each object to be perceived as gradually moving in the direction of depth and finally switched to the two-dimensional display.)
It would have been obvious to further modify Gupta (in view of Bell) wherein said shifting is performed gradually such that said user does not experience abrupt changes in said presented two images to said user, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce eye fatigue for the user.
Regarding claim 70:
Claim 70 is similarly rejected for those reasons discussed above in claims 57 – 59 above.
Claim(s) 63 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta, Amitabha (Patent number: US 10, 869, 026 B2), hereafter Gupta, in view of Bell et al; (Publication number: US 2017/0171538 A1), hereafter Bell, in view of Diemer et al; (Publication number: US 2012/0074317 A1), hereafter Diemer.
Regarding claim 63:
Gupta (in view of Bell) does not disclose the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein said processor is configured to notify said user when an actual working distance of said two cameras deviates from said designed working distance beyond an allowable threshold.
However, Diemer discloses a particle beam microscope and method for operating the particle beam microscope. More particularly, Diemer discloses (Diemer [0062] However, it is also conceivable that a user may perform a manual positioning, wherein positioning movements which may lead to a collision are prevented by notifications, warning signals, and/or a stopping of the positioning process.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Gupta (in view of Bell) wherein said processor is configured to notify said user when an actual working distance of said two cameras deviates from said designed working distance beyond an allowable threshold, as claimed. Those skilled in the art would appreciate the ability to reduce collision between the imaging apparatus and the subject.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 62 is 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 62, the prior art does not disclose the stereoscopic imaging system according to claim 51, wherein said processor fills in non-overlapping parts of said two images with black areas; and where said processor gradually reduces a brightness of said two images near said non-overlapping parts of said two images to eliminate stark contrasts in brightness at boundaries between said overlapping parts and said non- overlapping parts of said two images.
In an example of the prior art, Tabata, Seiichiro (Patent number: US 6, 111, 597), hereafter Tabata, discloses a stereo image forming apparatus. More particularly, Tabata discloses filling in non-overlapping parts of said two images with black areas (Tabata Figure 23 see black areas of each image). However, Tabata does not further disclose where said processor gradually reduces a brightness of said two images near said non-overlapping parts of said two images to eliminate stark contrasts in brightness at boundaries between said overlapping parts and said non- overlapping parts of said two images.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tabata, Seiichiro (Patent number: US 6, 111, 597).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIHIR K RAYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7063. 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.
/MIHIR K RAYAN/ 29 May 2026Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
Prosecution Insights