DETAILED ACTION
The present Office action is in response to the application filing on 30 MAY 2025.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: eye-tracking unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Upon review of the specification, the following corresponding structure applies:
Eye-tracking unit – [0050] “The eye-tracking unit 11 can include a web camera, monocular camera, stereo camera, multi-camera, and depth-sensing camera.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With regard to claims 4 and 17, the “light field film” is not disclosed with sufficiency in the originally filed specification to reasonably convey the joint inventors had possession at the time of filing. The specification does not describe what the light field film is, only that it is a substrate that can be printed on or support dummy pixels. See Specification, ¶ [0099]. The term “light field” refers to a spatial or directional distribution of light rays emitted from an object. See ¶ [0004]. Therefore, in an embodiment with the light field film, the disclosure is silent how to mediate the light emitting properties that would be introduced by including it below the lens array for the purpose of displaying the reference pattern in the non-display area. Inclusive, the Specification does not describe how the light field film is meant to support and activate the dummy pixels. For these reasons, the disclosure does not provide adequate support for the embodiment which implements the light field film.
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 4 and 17 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.
With regard to claims 4 and 7, it is unclear what a “light field film” is. The Specification defines “light field” as, “the spatial or directional distribution of light rays emitted from an object.” See Specification, ¶ [0004]. It is not clear what a film with such light field properties conceivably is. Interposing such a film between the display panel and the lens array would presumably create distortions due to the light emitting effects, but the Specification is silent on the effects of the video output. For examination purposes, the “light field film” is any layer that extends from a display area to a non-display area.
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) 15, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2026/043472 A1 (hereinafter “Wilburn”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0106692 A1 (hereinafter “Maizels”).
Regarding claim 15, Wilburn discloses a method of driving a three-dimensional image display device including a camera configured to capture an image ([0003], “The system may include an autostereoscopic display operating in a scene, a set of cameras associated with the autostereoscopic display and configured to capture image data of the scene”), and a display module including a display panel having a display area in which pixels are arranged ([0002], “the autostereoscopic display itself provides an accurate model of which sub-pixels on the display are visible at various pupil positions in front of the display”) ([0020], “an autostereoscopic display to emit its light through a lenticular film that includes a one-dimensional or two-dimensional array of lenticular lenses each configured to help steer and direct light emitted from the pixels behind them”), the display module being configured to display a reference pattern ([0002], “an autostereoscopic display may project a light pattern into the scene in front of the display so as to be visible to the integrated cameras”), the method comprising:
capturing a reflected image disposed in front of the display module through the camera while the display module displays the reference pattern ([0003], “a set of cameras associated with the autostereoscopic display and configured to capture image data of the scene.” [0037], “an autostereoscopic display 104 to project and target a light pattern into the scene where it will be visible to the cameras may help display system 102 to assess the display’s performance”);
determining a misalignment between the camera and the display module based on a reflected image of the reference pattern included in the reflected image ([0004], “3) determining, based on image data of the scene captured by a set of cameras associated with the autostereoscopic display, an alignment error between the boundary and the point.” FIG. 1 depicts a light pattern projected with a particular point 118 relative to portions of the light pattern being captured for determining alignment);
calculating a compensation value to correct the misalignment ([0031], “compensation may be made to calibration parameters.” [0040], “to the extent that an alignment error 120 is detected between boundary 116 and the point 118 to which it is targeted, this error may represent a discrepancy between the current calibration parameters and optimal, accurate parameters.” [0074], “generating, based on the angle of misalignment, the alignment error as a distance:” e.g., the updated parameters are based on the distance, which is compensated for);
capturing a viewer image through the camera (FIG. 6, user 608 with feature 610. [0104], “the process further comprises identifying, based on the image data, a user present within the scene”);
correcting the viewer image based on the compensation value ([0073], “the calibration sequence performed by the 3D display system may include identifying (e.g., based on image data such as depicted in the figure) the user 608 present within the scene, such that the particular point used for the calibration sequence may be associated with user 608 and centered between a first eye of the user and a second eye of the user. Along with identifying this feature 610 in two dimensions of the image space, the targeting of light pattern 604 to feature 610 may further include determining, based on the image data, a depth of feature 610 with respect to the set of cameras. In other words, the depth of user 608, and of feature 610 in particular, may be determined so that it may be used, along with a contrast detected between the portions 606-1 and 606-2 at the boundary, for assessing and/or updating lenticular calibration parameters in the ways described above”);
identifying a viewer's position relative to the display module based on the corrected viewer image ([0078], “the display system may then be periodically recalibrated.” Note, the user’s position is determined through calibration (see FIG. 6 and [0073]) and the system continually recalibrates. The “based on the corrected viewer image” is interpreted as being based on the updated parameters producing corrected viewer images, which will be reflected in continual recalibration); and
aligning and displaying image data of a three-dimensional image according to a predefined view map corresponding to the viewer's position ([0073], “the depth of user 608, and of feature 610 in particular, may be determined so that it may be used, along with a contrast detected between the portions 606-1 and 606-2 at the boundary, for assessing and/or updating lenticular calibration parameters in the ways described above.” [0019], “present three-dimensional (3D) content to users.” Note, the 3D content displayed is based on the calibration parameters, which are continually updated and are based on a user’s position (see FIG. 6 and [0073])).
Wilburn fails to expressly disclose a non-display area adjacent to the display area.
However, Maizels teaches a non-display area adjacent to the display area (FIG. 1 with system 10 and 3-D camera 12. [0029], “The system 10 incorporates a 3-dimensional (3-D) camera 12, which may include an infra-red (IR) projector and a corresponding CMOS/CCD camera.” Note, the IR projector is coupled to the display screen 28).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used a projector adjacent to the display area, as taught by Maizels ([0029]), in Wilburn’s invention. One would have been motivated to modify Wilburn’s invention, by incorporating Maizels’ invention, because it is an obvious combination of prior art elements according to known methods for combining an IR projector to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 16, Wilburn and Maizels disclose very limitation of claim 15, as outlined above. Additionally, Wilburn discloses wherein the display panel comprises:
the pixels disposed in the display area and configured to display the three-dimensional image ([0019], “present three-dimensional (3D) content to users”); and
([0002], “an autostereoscopic display may project a light pattern into the scene in front of the display so as to be visible to the integrated cameras”),
the method further comprising, prior to capturing the reflected image, controlling the dummy pixels to display the reference pattern ([0003], “a set of cameras associated with the autostereoscopic display and configured to capture image data of the scene.” [0037], “an autostereoscopic display 104 to project and target a light pattern into the scene where it will be visible to the cameras may help display system 102 to assess the display’s performance”).
Wilburn fails to expressly disclose dummy pixels disposed in the non-display area.
However, Maizels teaches dummy pixels disposed in the non-display area (FIG. 1 with system 10 and 3-D camera 12. [0029], “The system 10 incorporates a 3-dimensional (3-D) camera 12, which may include an infra-red (IR) projector and a corresponding CMOS/CCD camera.” Note, the IR projector is coupled to the display screen 28). The same motivation of claim 15 applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 18, Wilburn and Maizels disclose every limitation of claim 15, as outlined above. Additionally, Wilburn discloses wherein the determining of the misalignment comprises: determining whether the reflected image matches a preset reference reflected image predefined for the reference pattern ([0040], “If calibration were complete and display system 102 were operating to present binocular content to a user, boundary 116 would be targeted at a cyclopean eye of the user so that each eye could be presented with its respective portion of light. Accordingly, during the calibration illustrated by configuration 100, the projection of light pattern 112 may be targeted to cause boundary 116 to intersect with point 118. This targeting may be performed based on default calibration parameters or previously-derived calibration parameters that represent the current best representation the system has of the relationship between autostereoscopic display 104 and set of cameras 108.” Note, the particular point 118 is meant to match with boundary 116).
Regarding claim 19, Wilburn and Maizels disclose very limitation of claim 15, as outlined above. Additionally, Wilburn teaches wherein the calculating of the compensation value comprises: calculating a shift compensation value to shift the reflected image to match a preset reference reflected image based on the reflected image being displaced in a horizontal or vertical direction relative to the preset reference reflected image (FIG. 1, alignment error 120 of particular point 118 and edge 116 in the horizontal direction of the expected position).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2026/043472 A1 (hereinafter “Wilburn”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0106692 A1 (hereinafter “Maizels”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2021/0247621 A1 (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 17, Wilburn and Maizels disclose every limitation of claim 15, as outlined above. Wilburn and Maizels fail to expressly disclose wherein the display panel further comprises a light field film interposed between the display panel and the lens array, the light field film having the reference pattern formed at a position corresponding to the non-display area.
However, Yang teaches wherein the display panel further comprises a light field film interposed between the display panel and the lens array, the light field film having the reference pattern formed at a position corresponding to the non-display area (FIGS. 11-15 depict the structured light projector 21 with a plurality of layers between the display and the outer lens, for which light passes through and therefore the reference pattern is “formed” thereon).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used film layers stacked between the display and the lens array, as taught by Yang (FIGS. 11-15), in Wilburn and Maizels’ invention. One would have been motivated to modify Wilburn and Maizels’ invention, by incorporating Yang’s invention, because it is an obvious application of a known technique for layering films to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2143(I)(D).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2026/043472 A1 (hereinafter “Wilburn”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0106692 A1 (hereinafter “Maizels”), and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0124928 A1 (hereinafter “Edwin”).
Regarding claim 20, Wilburn and Maizels disclose every limitation of claim 19, as outlined above. Wilburn and Maizels fail to expressly disclose wherein the calculating of the compensation value further comprises: calculating a rotation compensation value to rotate the reflected image to match the preset reference reflected image based on the reflected image being tilted relative to the preset reference reflected image; and calculating a scale compensation value to enlarge or reduce the reflected image to match the preset reference reflected image in size based on the reflected image differing in size from the preset reference reflected image.
However, Edwin teaches wherein the calculating of the compensation value further comprises: calculating a rotation compensation value to rotate the reflected image to match the preset reference reflected image based on the reflected image being tilted relative to the preset reference reflected image; and calculating a scale compensation value to enlarge or reduce the reflected image to match the preset reference reflected image in size based on the reflected image differing in size from the preset reference reflected image ([0091], “The calibration pattern 702 can be any type of pattern suitable for performing spatial or chromatic calibration (e.g., a checkerboard pattern comprising a plurality of checkerboard squares).” [0107], “corrections of xy translation, rotation, and scaling have been performed.” See FIGS 7-9E, correcting a checkerboard pattern by rotating and scaling).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have used rotation and scaling for compensating, as taught by Edwin (FIGS. 7-9E), in Wilburn and Maizels’ invention. One would have been motivated to modify Wilburn and Maizels’ invention, to correct imperfections (Edwin: [0005]) and thereby improving quality.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Publication No. 2026/0129151 A1 – Discloses using patterns for correcting for crosstalk in a display. See FIG. 4.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STUART D BENNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-0677. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 9:00 AM - 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, William Vaughn can be reached at 571-272-3922. 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.
/STUART D BENNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights