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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/25/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgment of Amendments
Applicant’s amendment filed 11/20/2025 overcomes the following objection(s)/rejection(s):
The rejection of claims 1, 13 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-11, 13-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
(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, 3, 10-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Rowell et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0058870 A1).
As per claim 1, Rowell teaches an image processing apparatus that performs processing on a captured image generate by imaging, the image processing apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to function as: an acquiring unit (figs. 1-2, 6 and 9) configured to acquire information on an imaging apparatus used in the imaging (fig. 3 and fig. 9 and [0045-0050], and [0139-0140]); generating unit ([0065]; graphic processing unit (GPU)) an information image as an image including information on the imaging apparatus ([[0065], the 3D calibration metadata can be visually encoded into one or mor frames of the 3D video file”); and an adding unit ([0065], graphic processing unit “GPU”) configured to add the information image to the captured image and to record the captured image to which the information image is added ([0065] and fig. 9),wherein the captured image is generated by imaging though optical systems each having an angle of view of 180 or more ([0022]; “..the stereoscopic device includes two wide-angle lenses (e.g., fish-eye lenses) to capture 3d images and video with a wide field of view. For example, the field of view can be, e.g., 180 degrees), add the information image to at least one of areas where parts of the right and left-eye optical systems are captured in the captured image ([0065], in some embodiments, the 3D calibration metadata can be visually encoded into one or more frames of the 3D video file).
As per claim 3, Rowell teaches wherein the information on the imaging apparatus includes at least one of (i) design information on the imaging apparatus (fig. 3 and [0045-0050]), (ii) information on an image sensor of the imaging apparatus ([0045-0050] and fig. 3) and (iii) manufacturing error information on the imaging apparatus ([0050] and fig.3).
As per claim 10, Rowell teaches wherein the imaging apparatus (fig. 1) includes a circular fisheye lens as each of the right and left-eye optical systems (([0022], [0044] In some embodiments, the stereoscopic device includes two wide-angle lenses (e.g., fish-eye lenses) to capture 3d images”).
As per claim 11, Rowell teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to function as: a processing unit (fig. 9) configured to acquire the information on the imaging apparatus from the information image added to recorded captured image and to perform image processing on the captured image by using the information on the imaging apparats (fig. 9).
As per claim 14, Rowell teaches an imaging apparatus comprising: an image processing apparatus (fig. 2 el. 210); and an image sensor configured to captured an object formed by an optical system (figs. 1, 2), wherein the image processing apparatus performs processing on a captured image generated by imaging (fig. 1, 2 and 9), wherein the image processing apparatus includes at least one processor configured to function as: an acquiring unit configured to acquire information on an imaging apparatus used in the imaging (fig. 3, fig. 9, [0045-0050], and [0139-0140]); a generating unit configured to generate an image including the information on the imaging apparatus (fig. 3, fig.9 graphic processing unit (GPU))” and [0065], [0157]); and an adding unit (fig. 9 el. 914) configured to add the information image to the captured image and to record the captured image to which the information is added ([0065], [0157],in some embodiments, the 3D calibration metadata can be visually encoded into one or more frames of the 3D video file ), wherein, when the captured mage is generated by imaging through right and left-eye optical systems each having an angle of view of 180
°
or more (fig. 1, fig. 2 [0022], [0044]; “..the stereoscopic device includes two wide-angle lenses (e.g., fish-eye lenses) to capture 3d images and video with a wide field of view. For example, the field of view can be, e.g., 180 degrees”), add the information image to at least one of areas where parts of the right and left-eye optical systems are captured in the captured image ([0065]).
As per claim 15, which is the corresponding image processing method that performs processing on a captured image generated by imaging with the limitations of the image processing apparatus as recited in claim 1. Thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1, also applies here.
As per claim 16, which is the corresponding non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program with the limitations of the imaging apparatus as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
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.
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) 2, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roswell et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0058870 A1) in view of Fee et al., (U.S Pub. No. 2023/008710 A1).
As per claim 2, Rowell does not explicitly disclose wherein the information image is a barcode, a digit string, or luminance information corresponding to a recorded bit number of the captured image.
However, Fee teaches the known concept wherein the information image is a barcode, a digit string, or luminance information corresponding to a recorded bit number of the captured image ([0059]), “The metadata may include at least one of the following information related to the video camera 110: unique video camera identifier (ID), group video camera ID, one or more associated user IDs, geolocation information, timestamp of captured video, direction, inclination, angle, moment, velocity, acceleration, or other environmental parameters. The metadata embedded within the one or more frames represents an in-band channel. In an aspect, the metadata may include a 2-dimensional bar code (such as QR code 400) representing the metadata. This bar code may occupy at least a portion of the one or more video frames.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fee with Rowell for the benefit of providing improved processing and increase efficiency of image processing.
As per claim 8, Rowell teaches wherein in a case where the captured image is a frame image of a moving image ([0022], [0023, [0024]), Rowell does not explicitly disclose the generating unit updates the information image every unit frame or every time the information on the imaging apparatus changes, and the adding unit adds the updated information to a corresponding frame image.
However, Fee teaches the generating unit updates the information every unit frame or every time the information on the imaging apparatus changes, and the adding unit adds the updated information image to a corresponding frame image (see fig. 4 and [0050-0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Fee with Rowell for the benefit of providing improved processing and increase efficiency of image processing.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0058870 A1) in view of Yamada et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0417431 A1).
As per claim 5, Roswell does not explicitly disclose wherein the information on the imaging apparatus includes at least one of (i) temperature information on the imaging apparatus, (ii) focus information on the imaging apparatus, and (iii) orientation information on the imaging apparatus.
However, Yamada teaches wherein the information on the imaging apparatus includes at least one of (i) temperature information on the imaging apparatus, (ii) focus information on the imaging apparatus, and (iii) orientation information on the imaging apparatus ([0009], [0087], fig. 1 el. 15, figs. 7-8, “the imaging-related information can include information indicating the position of the imaging device (corresponding to the position of the imaging viewpoint), information regarding the focal length, information indicating the imaging direction (for example, information indicating the orientation in a pan direction or a tilt direction in a case of using the imaging device on a tripod, azimuth information by an azimuth sensor, and the like,”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Yamada with Rowell for the benefit of providing improved image processing.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0058870 A1) in view of Watanabe et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269640 A1).
As per claim 6, Roswell teaches wherein the adding unit adds as the information image, to the captured image (i) a first information image including information at a start of the imaging among information on the imaging apparatus ([0072]). Roswell does not explicitly disclose and (ii) a second information image including information changed after the start of the imaging among the information on the imaging apparatus.
However, Watanabe teaches a second information image including information changed after the start of the imaging among the information on the information apparatus ([0065-0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe with Roswell for the benefit of providing improved image processing and image quality.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rowell et al.., (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0058870 A1) in view of Chen et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0121525 A1).
As per claim 9, Rowell teaches wherein the imaging apparatus includes: the imaging lens including the right and left-eye optical systems (fig. 1). Rowell does not explicitly disclose a camera body that includes an image sensor and to which the imaging lens is detachably attached, and wherein the acquiring unit acquires the information on the imaging apparatus from each of the imaging lens and the camera body.
However, Chen teaches a camera body that includes an image sensor and to which the imaging lens is detachably attached ([0062]), and wherein the acquiring unit acquires the information on the imaging apparatus from each of the imaging lens and the camera body (abstract, figs. 6A-6B, 8, 13, [0130], [0207-0208]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Chen with Rowell for the benefit of improving efficiency of image processing.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights