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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tamura (US 2007/0188475 A1, hereinafter “Tamura”).
As to claim 1, Tamura (Fig. 2) discloses an interactive system (1) comprising:
a display device (7) that displays an image (Para. 0028);
a pointer (3) that transmits an electromagnetic wave (Para. 0028);
a first sensor (71) that receives the electromagnetic wave (para. 0037);
a second sensor (72) that receives the electromagnetic wave (Para. 0037); and
one or more processors (Fig. 3 element 10; Para. 0030), wherein
the one or more processors execute
calculating a first distance (Fig. 2 element 51) as a distance between the pointer and the first sensor based on output from the first sensor (Fig. 4; Para. 0041-0042),
calculating a second distance (52) as a distance between the pointer and the second sensor based on output from the second sensor (Para. 0041-0042),
calculating a position of the pointer based on the first distance, the second distance, and a positional relationship between the first sensor and the second sensor (Fig. 2; Para. 0007, 0041, “ the position of electronic pen can be determined only as somewhere on a circle that takes as center a portion of the line that joins the two ultrasonic receivers 71 and 72…”), and
causing the display device to display an image based on the position of the pointer (Para. 0043).
As to claim 6, Tamura discloses the interactive system according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors execute:
receiving a third operation of setting the positional relationship between the first sensor and the second sensor (Para. 0007, 0043, determining the center point from the positions of the sensors); and
calculating the position of the pointer based on the first distance, the second distance, and the positional relationship set by the third operation (Para. 0043).
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.
Claim(s) 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takamatsu et al. (US 2012/0182216 A1, hereinafter “Takamatsu”).
As to claim 2, Tamura does not disclose the interactive system according to claim 1, wherein
the one or more processors execute:
causing the display device to display a first image containing three or more marks disposed at positions different from one another as the image;
receiving a first operation of designating three or more positions corresponding to the three or more marks on a one-on-one basis with the pointer;
setting an input area as an area where processing of calculating the position of the pointer is executed by the one or more processors based on the designated three or more positions; and
generating a correspondence relationship that associates a coordinate system of the input area with a coordinate system of the image displayed by the display device.
However, Takamatsu (Fig. 9) teaches wherein
the one or more processors execute:
causing the display device to display a first image containing three or more marks (7) disposed at positions different from one another as the image (Para. 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Takamatsu to project initialization marks for projection area in the device disclosed by Tamura. The motivation would have been to provide the projection surface with respect to the pointing device (Takamatsu; Para. 0067).
Furthermore, Nishigaki (Fig. 1) teaches receiving a first operation of designating three or more positions (1a, dotted lines) corresponding to the three or more marks on a one-on-one basis with the pointer (2a, boundary lines; Para. 0040, the 1a and 2a are mapped on one-to-one basis as shown in the figure 1);
setting an input area (1a) as an area where processing of calculating the position of the pointer is executed by the one or more processors based on the designated three or more positions (Para. 0041); and
generating a correspondence relationship that associates a coordinate system of the input area with a coordinate system of the image displayed by the display device (Para. 0049, 0073; figure 1 shows the correspondence between the coordinate system of the area 1a and 2a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Nishigaki to project an input area in the device disclosed by Tamura/Takamatsu. The motivation would have been to “provide a projector an electronic apparatus having a projector function each capable of reliably detecting a detection object also when a projected image has a color hardly allowing detection of a beam reflected by the detection object” (Nishigaki; Para. 0007).
As to claim 3, Tamura in view of Takamatsu and Nishigaki disclose the interactive system according to claim 2. Nishigaki (Fig. 1) further discloses wherein
the one or more processors execute:
causing the display device to display a second image (2a; ICON) containing a display area for displaying an object as the image (Para. 0040, display area for ICON);
receiving a second operation of drawing the object in the input area with the pointer (1a, the input by an user; furthermore, it is merely a result effective variable to have a drawing functionality); and
displaying the object in the display area based on the second operation (2a; ICON; Para. 0040).
As to claim 4, Tamura in view of Takamatsu disclose the interactive system according to claim 2. Takamatsu (Fig. 15) further teaches wherein the input area (22) is different from an area where an image is displayed by the display device (5; Para. 0089).
As to claim 5, The interactive system according to claim 2, further comprising a communication device that controls communication with a network and is connected to the display device, wherein
the display device includes a first wireless module that outputs first strength data indicating a strength of the electromagnetic wave received from the pointer as the first sensor, and
the communication device includes a second wireless module that outputs second strength data indicating a strength of the electromagnetic wave received from the pointer as the second sensor.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tamura in view of Nishigaki.
As to claim 7, Tamura (Fig. 2) discloses an interactive system (1) comprising:
a pointer (3) that transmits an electromagnetic wave (Para. 0028);
a first sensor (71) that receives the electromagnetic wave (para. 0037);
a second sensor (72) that receives the electromagnetic wave (Para. 0037); and
one or more processors (Fig. 3 element 10; Para. 0030), wherein
the one or more processors execute
calculating a first distance (Fig. 2 element 51) as a distance between the pointer and the first sensor based on output from the first sensor (Fig. 4; Para. 0041-0042),
calculating a second distance (52) as a distance between the pointer and the second sensor based on output from the second sensor (Para. 0041-0042),
calculating a position of the pointer based on the first distance, the second distance, and a positional relationship between the first sensor and the second sensor (Fig. 2; Para. 0007, 0041, “ the position of electronic pen can be determined only as somewhere on a circle that takes as center a portion of the line that joins the two ultrasonic receivers 71 and 72…”).
Tamura does not disclose setting an input area as an area where processing corresponding to the position of the pointer is executed by the one or more processors based on the designated three or more positions.
However, Nishigaki (Fig. 1) teaches setting an input area (1a) as an area where processing corresponding to the position of the pointer is executed by the one or more processors based on the designated three or more positions (1a, dotted lines; Para. 0040-0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Nishigaki to project an input area in the device disclosed by Tamura. The motivation would have been to “provide a projector an electronic apparatus having a projector function each capable of reliably detecting a detection object also when a projected image has a color hardly allowing detection of a beam reflected by the detection object” (Nishigaki; Para. 0007).
The above rejection also stands for the similar method of claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant‘s disclosure.
Krishnakumar et al. (US 2016/0316186 A1) discloses a projecting system and the a touch sensitive mat (Fig. 3).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BIPIN GYAWALI whose telephone number is (571)272-1597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30 PM.
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, Will Boddie can be reached at 571-272-0666. 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.
BIPIN GYAWALI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2625
/BIPIN GYAWALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2625
Prosecution Insights