Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/221,690

IMAGE DISPLAY DEVICE, IMAGE DISPLAY SYSTEM, IMAGE DISPLAY METHOD, AND PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
May 29, 2025
Priority
Mar 22, 2016 — JP 2016-057537 +6 more
Examiner
SATTI, HUMAM M
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
NEC Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
64%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 4m
Est. Remaining
82%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 64% of resolved cases
64%
Career Allowance Rate
294 granted / 462 resolved
+3.6% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
486
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
65.4%
+25.4% vs TC avg
§102
18.6%
-21.4% vs TC avg
§112
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 462 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. 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. Claim(s) 1, 6, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinoy (US. 11851279). Regarding claims 1, 6, and 11, Chinoy discloses an information processing device comprising: a first sensor provided in front of a target object including one or more items, (25) a series of cameras 208 may be positioned on external portions of the inventor locations and positioned toward a location where a user may stand. Images of the user may be captured and processed to determine the orientation of the user and/or the gaze direction representing the direction in which the user is looking (gazing)); one or more second sensors provided above the target object, ((25) one or more sensors 208 may be positioned within the inventory locations to capture images of items stored in the inventory locations and/or images of a user picking or placing an item at the inventory location); at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (46): capture, by the first sensor, one or more first images including the target object and customer moving in vicinity of the target object, ((49) determining user is approaching an inventor location and/or an item as in 404); detect, based on the one or more first images, a first time period from when the customer stops in front of the target object to when leaving the target object, ((50) see determining and tracking gaze of a user which assess whether a user is looking at an item. (51) gaze time, construed as first time period, is determined) detect, by the one or more second sensors, a distance from customer's hand to the one or more items in a case where the customer extends customer's hand to the one or more items in the first time period, ((52) note series of images may determine and item pick and place. In addition movement at inventory location such as a user’s hand reaching into the inventory location may also be determined from capture images associated with second sensors); identify, based on the one or more first images and the distance, one item among the one or more items, ((52) an item picked by a user may be determined from series of images detecting movements at inventor locations and gaze images captured by first sensors (50)-(51)); detect, based on the one or more first images and the distance, a second time period from when the customer picks up the one item to when the customer returns the one item to the target object, ((53) note in-transit time, construed as the second time period related to item pick and item place, can be determined using combination of first and second sensors 208); and display, on a display, the one or more first images and the second time period, ((33)(35)(38) note information such as item pick or item place and/or user interfaces may be presented to the user via portable device 205 and/or devices 306/312 fig 3. Examiner however notes that first sensor images nor the second time period is displayed. One of ordinary skill in the art may include the display of first images and second time period to be presented on a user interface to be viewed along with item pick and item place. Such presentation allows retail stores to accurately determine inventory levels and streamline item supply chain). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chinoy to achieve noted benefit. Claim(s) 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinoy in view of Ogawa (WO 2015040661). Regarding claims 2, 7, and 12, Chinoy discloses claims 1, 6 and 11. However, counting a number of times a customer extends the customer’s hand and displaying the number of times is not explicitly disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Ogawa discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: count, based on the one or more first images and the distance, a number of times that the customer extends the customer's hand to the one or more items; and display the number of times on the display (note image sensor or distance image sensor may be used to detect stretch of a shopper: page 6: 9th paragraph. hand-stretching frequency may also be counted: page 7: 14th paragraph. The stretches may also be graphically displayed: page 25: ;4th paragraph and displaying the number of times such as in fig10b, fig 10a-c, fig 19, and/or fig 33/fig35). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chinoy by Ogawa for the benefit of displaying customer related information associated with certain products so that retail stores may determine products related statistics such as popularity and/or determine restock timing of purchased products. Regarding claims 3, 8, and 13, Chinoy discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, based on the second time period and the number of times, the one or more items emphasized on the display, (note Chinoy discloses identifying uses using facial recognition in (29). Further in (33)(35)(38), note information such as item pick or item place and/or user interfaces may be presented to the user via portable device 205 and/or devices 306/312 fig 3. Examiner however notes that first sensor images nor the second time period is displayed. One of ordinary skill in the art may include the display of first images and second time period to be presented on a user interface to be viewed along with item pick and item place. Such presentation allows retail stores to accurately determine inventory levels and streamline item supply chain). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chinoy to achieve noted benefit. Chinoy does not disclose the number of times. However, Ogawa discloses the number of times, (note image sensor or distance image sensor may be used to detect stretch of a shopper: page 6: 9th paragraph. hand-stretching frequency may also be counted: page 7: 14th paragraph. The stretches may also be graphically displayed: page 25: ;4th paragraph and displaying the number of times such as in fig10b, fig 10a-c, fig 19, and/or fig 33/fig35. It is further noted that one or ordinary skill in the art may display an item highlighted on a graphic display based on the number of times, thereby allowing shelf inventory to be determined thereby allowing streamed supply of purchased products). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Chinoy by Ogawa for the benefit of displaying customer related information associated with certain products so that retail stores may determine products related statistics such as popularity and/or determine restock timing of purchased products. Claim(s) 4, 9, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinoy in view of Ogawa in view of Ishida (Pub 20210304256). Regarding claims 4, 9, 14, the combination discloses claims 2, 7, 12. However, to display, in a case where the customer is a pre-registered member, the second time period, the number of times, and the customer associated with each other is not explicitly disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Ishida discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to display, in a case where the customer is a pre-registered member, the second time period, the number of times, and the customer associated with each other, (note customer may be identified Para. [0109]. Information collected of identified customers may include time period in which customer looks at product, construed as second time period, and whether customer picks up a product, see Fig 10 and Para [0150]. Information related to customers and/or products may be output and displayed, Para. [0135]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination by Ishida for the benefit of generating customer-product data without duplicating results when different cameras are deployed. Claim(s) 5, 10, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinoy in view of Cudgma (Pub 20140257990). Regarding claims 5, 10, 15, Chinoy discloses claims 1, 6, and 11. However, calculate a correlation between a behavior for the one item by the customer and a behavior for another item by another customer; and display, on the display, an index based on the correlation is not disclosed. In a similar field of endeavor, Cudgma discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a correlation between a behavior for the one item by the customer and a behavior for another item by another customer; and display, on the display, an index based on the correlation, (note deriving correlation 24 between personality traits 12 of a group of consumers and one or more brand/products, Para. [0035]. The correlation result 22 is displayed in an output device as a graph, construed as an index). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the combination by Cudgma for the benefit of understanding the dynamics of different behaviors and how they are related to brands/products thereby allowing tailored shopping experience. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUMAM M SATTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1709. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, John Miller can be reached at (571)272-7353. 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. HUMAM M. SATTI Examiner Art Unit 2422 /BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 29, 2025
Application Filed
Aug 19, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12745892
WHITE BALANCE ADJUSTMENT JIG FOR ENDOSCOPE AND WHITE BALANCE ADJUSTMENT METHOD FOR ENDOSCOPE
3y 0m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12731511
SPLICED DISPLAY PANEL AND DISPLAY DEVICE
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12720026
PROJECTION DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12700081
CONTROL METHOD FOR CONTROLLING SYSTEM AND SYSTEM
4y 8m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12664786
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 8m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
64%
Grant Probability
82%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 9m (~1y 4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 462 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month