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 and 3-16 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, dated May 18, 2026 has been entered and made of record. In view of approval of Terminal Disclaimer dated May 18, 2026, the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been expressly withdrawn. In view of the Applicant’s amendments for claims 4-5, the claim rejections under 35 USC 112 have been expressly withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument has been fully considered, and Examiner respectfully submits that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As to claim 1, it has been amended to substantially incorporate claim 2, and Applicant argues (Remarks, p. 18)
Yamaguchi entirely lacks the structural concept of a “display region” that is distinct from the image itself, and nowhere does Yamaguchi disclose actually moving such a display region relative to a fixed correction region.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in FIGS. 4-9 of Yamaguchi, the “number of horizontal pixel” defined by predetermined “range” at step “S1905” reasonably corresponds to the “display region”, and as shown in FIGS. 7 and 15, the region restricted by the “upper and lower limits” reasonably corresponds to the fixed “correction region”. In this regard, the teaching of Yamaguchi reasonably reads on.
Examiner understands that Applicant appears to assert that Yamaguchi does not teach the features of “display region 70” and “correction region 72” described in the present application. However, claim 1 fails to clearly recite limitations sufficient enough to distinguish the teaching of Yamaguchi from those features. Examiner respectfully submits that 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).
Accordingly, claim 1 is not allowable.
As to claims 3 and 6-12, they directly or indirectly depend from claim 1, and are not allowable at least for the same reason above.
As to claims 4-5, it is persuasive that “Applicant has amended claims 4 and 5 to correct each of the deficiencies specifically pointed out by the Examiner” (Remarks, p. 6), and is allowable. Please see the following allowable subject matter for detailed analysis.
Examiner maintains his decision, and provides succinct explanation as described above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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”),
change a position of a display region of the transmissive display device with respect to a correction region where a correction of a display position is possible 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”);
derive a second position according to a first position of a display image displayed in the display region 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 the correction region (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 3, Yamaguchi teaches the processor according to claim 1, 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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 would be allowable if rewritten to include 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:
As to claim 4, the closest known prior art, i.e., Yamaguchi et al. (US 2018/0218714 A1, IDS), Watanabe et al. (US 20120113307 A1), Hayashi et al. (US 20150373283 A1), Uchidate et al. (US 20210241425 A1), Yamaguchi (US 20190310475 A1), Lee et al. (US 20150370072 A1), Iba (US 20050156817 A1), Lyons (US 20140160170 A1), Fateh (US 20160170481 A1), Nishibe et al. (US 2022/0036779 A1) and Goto (US 2021/0343036 A1), alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “in a case in which a first display image is superimposed on a second display image by changing a display position of the first display image to the third position, the processor is configured to perform a control to change a display position of the second display image according to the first display image after changing the display position to the third position”.
As to claim 5, the closest known prior art indicated above, alone or in reasonable combination, fails to teach limitations in consideration of the claims as a whole, specifically with respect to the limitations “in a case in which a first display image is superimposed on a second display image by changing a display position of the first display image to the third position, the processor is configured to selectively perform any of a first control to change a display position of the second display image according to the first display image after changing the display position to the third position, a second control to superimpose and display the first display image and the second display image, or a third control to set the display position of the first display image to the second position”.
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Nishibe et al. (US 2022/0036779 A1) teaches the concept of “control unit correcting a presentation position of the display information in the display region according to the relative movement between the viewpoint and the display information” (Abs.); and
Goto (US 2021/0343036 A1) teaches the concept of “updating the reference image using the image for estimation on the basis of the reliability” (Abs.).
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.
Inquiry
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached on (571) 272-7772. 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.
Jul. 23, 2026
/RICHARD J HONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
***
Prosecution Insights