DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time-wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based e-Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e-Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e-Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-12 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of Patent No. 12,346,621. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially the same limitations as application claims 2-3 recite portions of patent claim 1, and application claims 9-11 recite portions of patent claims 7-9, respectively:
Present Application
Patent
1. A processor configured to:
based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region.
1. A processor configured to:
based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region,
wherein the processor is configured to change a position of the display region with respect to the correction region according to the change of the relative position, and
wherein the processor is configured to independently correct display positions of the plurality of display images, in a case in which a plurality of the display images are displayed in the display region.
2. The processor according to claim 1,
wherein the processor is configured to change a position of the display region with respect to the correction region according to the change of the relative position.
3. The processor according to claim 2,
wherein the processor is configured to independently correct display positions of the plurality of display images, in a case in which a plurality of the display images are displayed in the display region.
9. The processor according to claim 1,
[based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region]
wherein the display image is divided into a plurality of partial regions, and the third position is a position where at least a predetermined partial region among the plurality of partial regions is within the correction region.
7. A processor configured to:
based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region,
wherein the display image is divided into a plurality of partial regions, and the third position is a position where at least a predetermined partial region among the plurality of partial regions is within the correction region.
10. The processor according to claim 1,
[based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region]
wherein a priority according to an area within the correction region is given to the display image, and the processor is configured to change the second position to the third position based on the priority, in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region.
8. A processor configured to:
based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region,
wherein a priority according to an area within the correction region is given to the display image, and the processor is configured to change the second position to the third position based on the priority, in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region.
11. The processor according to claim 1,
[based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region]
9. A processor configured to:
based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user's eye, derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position;
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible; and change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region,
wherein a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region where the correction of the display position is possible is a case in which at least a part of the display image is outside the correction region.
wherein a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region where the correction of the display position is possible is a case in which at least a part of the display image is outside the correction region.
As to claims 4-8, they recite the same limitations as in patent claims 2-6, respectively.
As to claim 12, the patent does not teach “wherein a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region where the correction of the display position is possible is a case in which 90% or more of an area of the display image is outside the correction region”.
However, Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0113307 A1) teaches the concept that correcting display position could be a predetermined value of an area of the display image (Watanabe, FIGS. 2-4, [0123-0126] and [0128], OI, Object or interest)).
At the time of effective filing date, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patent to further have a predetermined value being equal or great 90%, because relying on a localized correction region is a predictable without altering the fundamental correction principle (Watanabe, see FIGS. 6-7, [0132]), in order to provide that the object of interest could be always placed within the display area (Watanabe, [0131]).
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the first display image”, “the second display image”, and “a second display image … of the first display image” in claim 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art cannot clearly understand what the “first display image” and the “second display image”. and
Accordingly, claim 4 is indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the first display image” and “the second display image”, and is indefinite for the same reason above.
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 1-3, 6-7, 11 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. (US 2018/0218714 A1, IDS).
As to claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a processor (Yamaguchi, FIG. 2, [0033], “image processing apparatus 1210”) configured to:
based on a change of a relative position between a transmissive display device and a user’s eye (Yamaguchi, FIG. 9, [0056], “acquire position and orientation information at the time of image capturing S1902”),
derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in a display region of the display device and the change of the relative position (Yamaguchi, FIG. 9, [0058], e.g., “calculate the number of pixels over which image is to be moved S1904” → “number of horizontal pixels is within range? S1905” → YES);
change the first position to the second position in a case in which the second position does not exceed a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible (Yamaguchi, FIG. 9, [0059], “number of vertical pixels is within range? S1907?” → YES → “move image S1909”); and
change the first position to a third position and display the display image within the correction region in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region (Yamaguchi, e.g., FIG. 15, [0076], “difference ≤ upper limit? S2202?” → NO → “convert the number into the number of pixels within range S2203” → “move image S1907”).
As to claim 2, Yamaguchi discloses the processor according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to change a position of the display region with respect to the correction region according to the change of the relative position (Yamaguchi, see FIGS. 7-8, [0054], “The upper and lower limits may be set separately in the horizontal and the vertical directions, and the predetermined range may be differentiated between the horizontal and the vertical directions”).
As to claim 3, Yamaguchi teaches the processor according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to independently correct display positions of the plurality of display images (Yamaguchi, FIG. 9, “S1903” and “S1908”), in a case in which a plurality of the display images are displayed in the display region (Yamaguchi, see FIGS. 2-3, 5E, 5F, 8A, 8B, 9-10, Abstract, [0006, 0037-0038, 0045, 0052, 0057-0060, 0066, 0067], “1206” or “1802”).
PNG
media_image1.png
318
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 6, Yamaguchi teaches the processor according to claim 3, wherein a displayable range in which the display of the display image is possible is predetermined according to a degree (e.g., angle) of the change of the relative position (Yamaguchi, see FIGS. 4, 5A05F, 8A-8B, 9, [0046, 0065]), and
the processor is configured to change the display position of the display image to within the displayable range (Yamaguchi, see FIGS. 2-4, 9, [0055, 0059]).
As to claim 7, Yamaguchi teaches the processor according to claim 6, wherein the processor is configured to:
select the displayable range according to a motion state (different viewing angle) of the user; and change the display position of the display image to within the selected displayable range (Yamaguchi, see FIGS. 4, 7, 9, [0046-0048], [0055-0060]).
As to claim 11, Yamaguchi teaches the processor according to claim 1, wherein a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region where the correction of the display position is possible is a case in which at least a part of the display image is outside the correction region (Yamaguchi, see FIGS. 8C-8E, 9-10, [0055-0060], [0067-0068], black area in FIG. 8C).
As to claim 13, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the image processing device comprising the processor of claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Yamaguchi discloses them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 14, Yamaguchi discloses a glasses-type information display device (Yamaguchi, FIGS. 1-2, [0033], “HMD 1201”) comprising:
a transmissive display device (Yamaguchi, FIGS. 1-2, [0037], “image processing apparatus I/F communication unit 1204”); and
the processor (Yamaguchi, FIG. 2, [0033], “image processing apparatus 1210”) according to claim 1.
As to claim 15, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the image processing device comprising the processor of claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Yamaguchi discloses them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
As to claim 16, it differs from claim 1 only in that it is the non-transitory storage medium storing an image processing program to be executed by the processor of claim 1. It recites substantially the same limitations as in claim 1, and Yamaguchi discloses them. Please see claim 1 for detailed analysis.
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 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.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 2018/0218714 A1, IDS) in view of Hayashi et al. (US 2015/0373283 A1).
As to claim 8, Yamaguchi does not teach the processor according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to perform a control to hide the display image instead of changing the first position to the third position, in a case in which a change amount of the relative position exceeds a predetermined threshold value.
However, Hayashi teaches the concept of performing a control to hide the display image (Hayashi, FIGS. 6-8, [0076], e.g., “a mode of displaying the frame 510 and a mode of not displaying the frame 510 are prepared to enable a user of the projector 1 to select one of the modes. If the latter mode is selected, the frame display control portion 104 does not control the projection unit 11 to display the frame 510”) instead of changing the first position to the third position, in a case in which a change amount of the relative position exceeds a predetermined threshold value (Hayashi, see FIGS. 6 and 10, [0113]).
At the time of effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the processor taught by Yamaguchi to further perform “not displaying the frame 510”, as taught by Hayashi, in order to “make a record of an image written in a surface more certainly and more user-friendly than is conventionally possible” (Hayashi, [0012]).
As to claim 9, Hayashi teaches the processor according to claim 1, wherein the display image is divided into a plurality of partial regions (Hayashi, e.g., FIG. 6, [0068], “areas 51, 52, and 53”), and the third position (Hayashi, e.g., FIG. 6, [0068], “area 53”) is a position where at least a predetermined partial region among the plurality of partial regions is within the correction region (Hayashi, see FIGS. 6B-6C, [0082-0088]). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 8.
Claims 12 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi et al. (US 2018/0218714 A1, IDS) in view of Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0113307 A1).
As to claim 12, Yamaguchi does not teach the processor according to claim 1, wherein a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region where the correction of the display position is possible is a case in which 90% or more of an area of the display image is outside the correction region.
However, Watanabe teaches the concept that correcting display position could be a predetermined value of an area of the display image (Watanabe, FIGS. 2-4, [0123-0126] and [0128], OI, Object or interest).
At the time of effective filing date, it would obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the patent to further have a predetermined value being equal or great 90%, because relying on a localized correction region is a predictable without altering the fundamental correction principle (Watanabe, see FIGS. 6-7, [0132]), in order to provide that the object of interest could be always placed within the display area (Watanabe, [0131]).
As to claim 10, Watanabe teaches the processor according to claim 1, wherein a priority (object of interest, OI) according to an area within the correction region (DA) is given to the display image, and the processor is configured to change the second position (see FIGS. 3 and 6) to the third position (see FIG. 4) based on the priority, in a case in which the second position exceeds the correction region (DA) (Watanabe, see FIGS. 2-4, 6, [0123-0128]). Examiner renders the same motivation as in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Uchidate et al. (US 2021/0241425 A1) teaches the concept of a “determination unit determining a drop in the frame rate of the video” (Abs.); Yamaguchi (US 2019/0310475 A1) teaches the concept that “a corrected frame image in which the frame image is corrected in accordance with the determination result is generated” (Abs.); Lee et al. (US 2015/0370072 A1) teaches the concept of “determining a direction in which a movement of the HMD is limited is sensed … and changing a display position of at least one portion of second contents which are displayed in a region corresponding to the determined direction in the second region which is disposed next to both sides of the first region” (Abs.); Watanabe et al. (US 2012/0113307 A1) teaches the concept of “position-of-interest-calculating-unit, alteration-variable-decision unit, and an image-alternation-unit” (Abs.); Iba (US 2005/0156817 A1) teaches the concept of “displacement-calculating unit … after shifting the image in at least the horizontal direction in accordance with the displacement” (Abs.); Lyons (US 2014/0160170 A1) teaches the concept of “in response to receiving sensor information indicating that the location of the display relative to a head of the user has changed, cause provision of the image element at a second, different, location on the display” (Abs.); and Fateh (US 2016/0170481 A1) teaches the concept of “visual stabilizers positioned within the digital content so that they converge to a shared location when viewed by a user” (Abs.).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD J HONG whose telephone number is (571) 270-7765. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LunYi Lao can be reached on (571) 272-7671. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Feb. 13, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
***