DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2, 8-10, 12, 18-20 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7, 11, 13-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. US 2019/0118091 hereinafter referred to as Taylor in view of Varadarajan et al. US 2019/0028683 hereinafter referred to as Varadarajan.
In regards to claim 1, Taylor teaches:
“A mobile projector device, comprising: a drive assembly comprising at least one wheel”
Taylor paragraph [0045] teaches a robot 108, which includes an image capture device 110 and a projector 112. Taylor paragraph [0134] teaches The robot 1100 includes a plurality of wheels/rollers, e.g. wheels/rollers 1130a and 1130b as shown, that are configured to enable the robot 1100 to move about the local environment.
“a transceiver”
Taylor paragraph [0123] teaches A transceiver 1108 is configured to transmit and/or receive data, via a wireless or wired connection.
“a projector”
Taylor paragraph [0045] teaches a robot 108, which includes an image capture device 110 and a projector 112.
“memory storing instructions; and at least one processor”
Taylor paragraph [0021] teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium having program instructions embodied thereon is provided, that when executed by a processer, cause said processor to perform a method
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the mobile projector device to: determine whether to set the mobile projector device as an extension display device associated with a source device”
Taylor paragraph [0041] teaches the computing device 106 is a thin client that communicates over the network (e.g. the Internet) with a cloud services provider to obtain the primary view 116 of the virtual space. Taylor paragraph [0050] The robot 108 includes the projector 112, that is configured to project a secondary view 118 of the virtual space onto a surface in the local environment 101. Taylor paragraph [0052] teaches In the illustrated implementation, the projector 112 projects the secondary view 118 of the virtual space onto the wall 120, which is a side wall relative to the display surface 105 of the display device 104. That is, the display surface 105 of the display device 104, on which the primary view 116 is rendered, defines a front surface that is viewed by the user 100 when the user's gaze direction is directed in a forward direction.
“receive, through the transceiver and from the source device, information about an image based on determining to set the mobile projector device as the extension display device”
Taylor paragraph [0059] teaches the secondary view 118 is also generated by the computing device 106, or more specifically the interactive application executing on the computing device 106. A video stream depicting the secondary view 118 can be transmitted/streamed to the robot 108 from the computing device 106, and the projector 112 of the robot 108 can be activated to render the video stream, thereby defining the projection of the secondary view 118.
“determine a projection position for projecting the image …; and control the projector to project the image at the projection position.
Taylor paragraph [0050] and Figure 1 teaches The robot 108 includes the projector 112, that is configured to project a secondary view 118 of the virtual space onto a surface in the local environment 101.
Taylor does not explicitly teach:
“[projecting an image] based on position information about the source device”
Varadarajan paragraph [0049] teaches the projection controller 132 causes the projection source 130 of the projector 108 to project and/or display the projected content 164 onto the projection surface 166 based on the projection source position data 158 identified and/or determined by the projection source position determiner 128 of the projection engine 106 of FIG. 1. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Taylor in view of Varadarajan to have included the features of an audience (e.g., one or more human(s)) exposed to content projected onto a projection surface within a well-lit environment via a projector may find viewing and/or interpreting the projected content to be a difficult task (Varadarajan [0003]).
In regards to claim 3, Taylor/Varadarajan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the mobile projector device to: control the drive assembly to move the mobile projector device to the projection position”
Taylor paragraph [0014] teaches the robot further includes at least one actuator that controls movement of the robot to different locations within the local environment, to enable the camera to capture the images of the user and/or to enable the projector to project the secondary video feed onto the projection surface.
In regards to claim 4, Taylor/Varadarajan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the mobile projector device to, while at the projection position: identify an area adjacent to the source device; and control the projector to project the image to the identified area”
Taylor paragraph [0015] teaches a method is provided, including the following operations: using a robot to scan a local environment to identify a surface for projection of video thereon. The Examiner interprets from Figure 1 that the wall the projector is projecting to is adjacent to the wall where the source device is located.
In regards to claim 6, Taylor/Varadarajan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the information about the image comprises information about at least one of: an image received in real-time by the source device, an image associated with an application executed on the source device, an image associated with a camera connected to the source device, and an image provided from a mobile terminal connected to the source device”
Taylor paragraph [0115] teaches The image capture data 1000 can be defined by a stream of image frames in some implementations. The computing device 106 executes an interactive application (e.g. a video game in some implementations) that defines a virtual space. Taylor paragraph [0116] teaches Based on tracking the gaze direction of the user, the computing device 106 may determine when the user turns to view a projection surface. And when this occurs, the computing device 106 generates a secondary video feed 1012 that depicts a secondary view of the virtual space,
In regards to claim 7, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“further comprising: a main body; a driver; a plurality of sensors; and at least one camera”
Taylor paragraph [0090] teaches a robot 108, which includes an image capture device 110 and a projector 112. From Figure 1 the Examiner interprets that robot has a body. Taylor paragraph [0102] teaches in some implementations, the robot 108 can include proximity sensors or other sensors.
“wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the mobile projector device to: determine, by the plurality of sensors and/or the at least one camera, a presence or absence of an obstacle in a direction in which the image is projected”
Taylor paragraph [0113] teaches he robot 108 may utilize the mapping of the objects as well as real-time sensing of the local environment through its various sensor hardware, to facilitate movement by the robot, for example to enable gaze tracking and/or projection of video, while avoiding collisions with other objects in the local environment. The Examiner interprets that if the robot can avoid collisions then it can determine the presence or absence of vehicles.
“and based on determining the presence of the obstacle, control the driver to rotate the main body of the mobile projector device by a predetermined angle”
Taylor paragraph [0143] teaches a robot having a rotatable ball-shaped portion 1250, in accordance with implementations of the disclosure. In some implementations, the ball-shaped portion 1250 can be rotated omnidirectionally, so as to redirect any device mounted thereto, such as a camera, projector, microphone, etc.
Taylor does not explicitly state that the rotation is in response to determining the presence of an obstacle however, this feature appears to be nothing more than a combination of familiar elements (detecting obstacle, rotating body) according to known methods (avoiding obstacles) and does not result in any unpredictable results as it merely results in the projection of the image at a desired location not impeded by obstacles. It has been held that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does not more than yield predictable results.” KSR., 127 S. Ct. at 1739, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (2007) (Citing Graham, 383 U.S. at 12).
In regards to claim 11, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 1 and claim 11 contains similar limitations. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 1.
In regards to claim 13, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 13 contains similar limitations as in claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 3.
In regards to claim 14, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 14 contains similar limitations as in claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 4.
In regards to claim 16, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 16 contains similar limitations as in claim 6. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 6.
In regards to claim 17, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 17 contains similar limitations as in claim 7. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 7.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor in view of Varadarajan in view of Xu US 2016/0154534 hereinafter referred to as Xu.
In regards to claim 5, Taylor/Varadarajan teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“further comprising a user interface (UI), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the mobile projector device to: identify a control signal generated based on interaction with the UI; … and wherein the identified control signal comprises information instructing to project a different image or information instructing to move the mobile projector device” and “mobile [projector]”
Taylor Figure 5 and paragraph [0087] teaches When the user 100 is located at the position 500 and having a gaze direction that is towards the display 104, the robot 108 can be configured to be positioned at a location 506 that affords a view of the user's eyes by the robot's camera 110, to enable detection of the gaze direction of the user 100. That is, the robot 108 is capable of moving or repositioning itself so as to position its camera 110 to be able to capture images of the user's eyes. Taylor [0088] teaches when the user 100 turns or moves to a location 502, and the user's gaze direction is directed to a side (relative to the direction towards the display 104), e.g. towards the side wall 120, then the robot 108 may move to the location 508, so that the camera 110 of the robot 108 is able to capture images of the user's eyes. By moving to the location 502, the robot 108 is repositioned so as to approximately stay positioned at a front side of the user 100. Additionally, the location 502 may be further chosen to enable the projector 112 of the robot 108 to project a secondary view 118 on the side wall 120. The Examiner interprets the portion of the robot that receives the input of the user’s gaze for control of the robot is equivalent to a user interface.
Taylor/Varadarajan do not explicitly teach:
“and based on the identified control signal, stop projecting the image and release the setting of the … projector device as the extension display device”
Xu teaches in paragraph [0156] In the case that the first projection content is projected by using the second projection unit, it represents that the projection region for the first projection content is adjusted by the user, and the user may view the first projection content in the adjusted projection region. In this case, the first projection unit may be controlled to stop projecting the first projection content. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Taylor/Varadarajan in view of Xu to have included the features of “and based on the identified control signal, stop projecting the image and release the setting of the … projector device as the extension display device” thereby avoiding interference for the user and reducing power consumption as more as possible. Additionally, the first projection unit may be turned off, thereby further reducing the power consumption (Xu [0156]).
In regards to claim 15, Taylor/Varadarajan teach all the limitations of claim 11 and claim 15 contains similar limitations as in claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for similar reasoning as applied to claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM 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, 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights