DETAILED ACTION
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Seo U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0225897 (hereinafter Seo).
Consider claim 1, Seo teaches an image interaction system (Figure 2a, 100), comprising: a projector (figure 2a, 110), configured to project an image onto a projection surface (Figure 6, 100, 610 and 630); a depth sensor, configured to detect depth information of the projection surface ([0045] and [0055], distance between the electronic device 100 and projection surface. Figure 2a, 120); and a processor, coupled to the projector and the depth sensor (Figure 2a, 140), and configured to: change an image content of the image according to a variation of the depth information (Figures 6-7, distance and screen mode).
Consider claim 2, Seo teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Seo teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: change the image content of the image from a distant view content to a close view content when the variation of the depth information is a depth value transitioning from large to small (Figure 6 and [0082]. Figure 8c shows a more broad or general content and figure 8a is more specific to content thumbnails. [0115] and figure 8a, the processor 140 may make information focused on apps and content thumbnails provided); and change the image content of the image from the close view content to the distant view content when the variation of the depth information is the depth value transitioning from small to large (Figure 6 and [0082]).
Consider claim 6, it includes the limitations of claim 1 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 7, it includes the limitations of claim 2 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
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) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claims 2, 7 above, and further in view of Shinohara et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2014/0340391 (hereinafter Shinohara).
Consider claim 3, Seo teaches all the limitations of claim 2. In addition, Seo teaches, when the depth value of the depth information is within a first depth interval, first multimedia data corresponding to the first depth interval is obtained from a multimedia database according to a first node parameter, and an image in the first multimedia data is used as the image (Figure 8c, 830); when the depth value of the depth information is within a second depth interval, second multimedia data corresponding to the second depth interval is obtained from the multimedia database according to a second node parameter, and an image in the second multimedia data is used as the image, (Figure 8b, 820), the second node parameter comprises a portion of content of the first node parameter (Figures 8b, 820 and 830 (see also figures 6-7)); and when the depth value of the depth information is within a third depth interval, third multimedia data corresponding to the third depth interval is obtained from the multimedia database according to a third node parameter, and an image in the third multimedia data is used as the image (Figure 8a, 810), the third node parameter comprises a portion of content of the second node parameter (Figures 8a-b, 810, 820).
Seo does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the close view content and the distant view content are in a hierarchical scaling relationship, wherein the second node parameter is hierarchically lower than the first node parameter; the image of the second multimedia data is the close view content relative to the first multimedia data, and the image of the first multimedia data is a distant view content relative to the second multimedia data; wherein the third node parameter is hierarchically lower than the second node parameter; the image of the third multimedia data is the close view content relative to the first multimedia data and the second multimedia data; and the images of the first multimedia data and the second multimedia data are the distance view contents relative to the third multimedia data.
However, in a relate field of endeavor, Shinohara teaches a hierarchical image data in [0045] and figure 4 and further teaches wherein the close view content and the distant view content are in a hierarchical scaling relationship (Figure 4 and [0046], 30, 32, 34 and 36), wherein the second node parameter is hierarchically lower than the first node parameter (Figure 4 and [0046], 30, 32, 34 and 36); the image of the second multimedia data is the close view content relative to the first multimedia data, and the image of the first multimedia data is a distant view content relative to the second multimedia data (Figure 6, 152 and 154a-c); wherein the third node parameter is hierarchically lower than the second node parameter (Figure 4 and [0046], 30, 32, 34 and 36); the image of the third multimedia data is the close view content relative to the first multimedia data and the second multimedia data ([0054], the number of hierarchies of the tree structure is not restricted. (see also figure 14, 172, 174 and 176)); and the images of the first multimedia data and the second multimedia data are the distance view contents relative to the third multimedia data ([0054], the number of hierarchies of the tree structure is not restricted (see also figure 14, 172, 174 and 176)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide hierarchical scaling relationship as taught by Shinohara with the benefit that different kinds of information having different granularities can be followed bidirectionally and continuously from an entire image of the information to detailed information of individual items. Therefore, desired information can be reached intuitively and efficiently as suggested in [0138].
Consider claim 8, it includes the limitations of claim 3 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 4-5 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo as applied to claims 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Stern et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2021/0064143 (hereinafter Stern).
Consider claim 4, Seo teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Seo does not appear to specifically disclose an image capturing device, coupled to the processor, and configured to capture a user operation image, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify an operation object and an operation parameter of the operation object in the user operation image; determine an execution permission of the operation parameter according to the depth information; and execute an operation corresponding to the operation parameter according to the execution permission, wherein the execution permission determines whether the operation corresponding to the operation parameter is allowed.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Stern teaches touch gestures in [0020] and further teaches an image capturing device (Figure 2, 104 and 108), coupled to the processor, and configured to capture a user operation image (Figure 2, 202), wherein the processor is further configured to: identify an operation object and an operation parameter of the operation object in the user operation image (Figure 1, 112); determine an execution permission of the operation parameter according to the depth information ([0030], distance. [0035], distance and gesture); and execute an operation corresponding to the operation parameter according to the execution permission [0037], display to present a feedback indicator), wherein the execution permission determines whether the operation corresponding to the operation parameter is allowed ([0037], stop presenting or feedback indicator. [0025], the amount and kind of radar gestures may vary at different distances from the electronic device. For example, a gesture that dismisses an alarm or silences a ringer, such as a “swipe” gesture (left-to-right, right-to-left, or up and down), may be available at a particular distance, such as three to five feet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to capture an user operation an provide a gesture zone as taught by Stern with the benefit that the gesture zone helps the electronic device and the radar-gesture applications to distinguish between intentional radar gestures by the user and other kinds of motions that may resemble radar gestures as suggested in [0035]. In addition, the amount and kind of radar gestures may vary at different distances from the electronic device as suggested in [0025].
Consider claim 5, Seo and Stern teach all the limitations of claim 4. In addition, Stern teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: when the depth value of the depth information is within a first depth interval or a second depth interval, an operation corresponding to the operation parameter corresponding to larger magnitude is allowed ([0025], the amount and kind of radar gestures may vary at different distances from the electronic device. For example, a gesture that dismisses an alarm or silences a ringer, such as a “swipe” gesture (left-to-right, right-to-left, or up and down), may be available at a particular distance, such as three to five feet), and an operation corresponding to the operation parameter corresponding to smaller magnitude is not allowed ([0025], the amount and kind of radar gestures may vary at different distances from the electronic device. For example, a gesture that dismisses an alarm or silences a ringer, such as a “swipe” gesture (left-to-right, right-to-left, or up and down), may be available at a particular distance, such as three to five feet); and when the depth value of the depth information is within a third depth interval, the operation corresponding to the operation parameter corresponding to larger magnitude is not allowed ([0025], at closer distances (e.g., seven, nine, or twelve inches), more-detailed fine-motion gestures may be available, such as rubbing two fingers together to adjust a volume or brightness in small increments…at the close distance, when more or different gestures are available), and the operation corresponding to the operation parameter corresponding to smaller magnitude is allowed ([0025], at closer distances (e.g., seven, nine, or twelve inches), more-detailed fine-motion gestures may be available, such as rubbing two fingers together to adjust a volume or brightness in small increments…at the close distance, when more or different gestures are available), see motivation to combine in claim 3.
Consider claim 9, it includes the limitations of claim 4 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Consider claim 10, it includes the limitations of claim 5 and thus rejected by the same reasoning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, 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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights