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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/6/2026 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Claims 1, 7, 12 and 16 have been amended [3/6/2026].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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 based on newly applied reference Diner et al. (US-5,182,641).
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, 2, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. (US-2022120910) in view of Nakamura et al. (JP-2020-021465A) and further in view of Diner et al. (US-5,182,641).
As to Claim 1, Okuyama teaches ‘An information processing apparatus, comprising: display control circuitry configured to display on a display a three- dimensional image that is determined based on an output of a light receiver that receives light projected on an object and reflected from the object [Figs 4, 5, par 0048-0049, 0069-0070, 0119-0121 – information processing system allows a display device to display a 3D moving body captured including distance image representing a flight distance of infrared light, output from the light emitting unit and then input to the two or more second pixels, i.e., the distance between the image sensor and the object], wherein the display control circuitry is configured to display, on the display, a display image including position identification information identifying a position of the light receiver obtained when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object based on the position identification information identifying the position of the light receiver obtained when the light receiver receives the light reflected from the object, and including the three-dimensional image [Fig 5, par 0121 – displaying an image obtained by superimposing the empty parking frame information on the image of the monitoring area including a position of the empty parking frame]’.
Okuyama does not disclose expressly ‘a display image including position identification information identifying a position of the light receiver obtained when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object based on the position identification information identifying the position of the light receiver obtained when the light receiver receives the light reflected from the object, and including the three-dimensional image, wherein: the position identification information includes an overlay of information on the three-dimensional image, the display control circuitry is configured to determine a display area of the three- dimensional image to be displayed on the display based on a position and an orientation of a virtual camera at a position of a viewpoint for viewing the three-dimensional image, and the virtual camera is at a position identified by the position identification information’.
Nakamura teaches ‘a display image including position identification information identifying a position of the light receiver obtained when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object based on the position identification information identifying the position of the light receiver obtained when the light receiver receives the light reflected from the object, and including the three-dimensional image, wherein the position identification information includes an overlay of information on the three-dimensional image [Figs 4, 5, par 0037-0038, 0040, 0042-0046 – photographing positions in the plurality of times of flight may be displayed so as to overlap each other in a distinguishable manner for each unit flight when viewed from a viewpoint at a position different, while displaying a virtual space viewed from specific viewpoint and a three dimensional image of the model, and highlights the photographing positions in the virtual space superimposed on the three dimensional model corresponding to the photographing position coordinates included in the photographing time information]’.
Okuyama and Nakamura are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include highlighting positions in a virtual space, as taught by Nakamura. The motivation for doing so would have been to displaying a check result such as a defect reflected in an image among many images so that a user can easily understand the check result. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nakamura with Okuyama to obtain the invention.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura does not disclose expressly ‘the display control circuitry is configured to determine a display area of the three- dimensional image to be displayed on the display based on a position and an orientation of a virtual camera at a position of a viewpoint for viewing the three-dimensional image, and the virtual camera is at a position identified by the position identification information’.
Diner in the proposed combination teaches ‘the display control circuitry is configured to determine a display area of the three- dimensional image to be displayed on the display based on a position and an orientation of a virtual camera at a position of a viewpoint for viewing the three-dimensional image, and the virtual camera is at a position identified by the position identification information [Fig 3, col 4, lines 3-10, col 8, lines 12-65, col 12, lines 33-57 – a virtual camera image can also be displayed, i.e., an image graphically generated to show what a camera at a certain location and orientation (with a certain power lens) would view, graphics including icons of said cameras positioned and oriented to provide said operator information as to locations and orientations of said cameras and an indication of what is the location of the selected viewing direction currently selected for image display on said monitor]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura are analogous art with Diner because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying projection of field of view of a camera, as taught by Diner. The motivation for doing so would have been to providing an operator such information as locations and orientations of all relevant television cameras and lighting elements, and for multiple camera systems, an indication of which camera's image is currently displayed on the one monitor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Diner with Okuyama in view of Nakamura to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Further, in regards to claim 12, the information processing apparatus performs the information processing method of claim 12.
As to Claims 2 and 14, Okuyama teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to display, on the display, based on area information indicating an area where a density with respect to point cloud data with respect to the three-dimensional image is lower than a threshold, the display image including low-density identification information identifying the area [par 0121, 0141 – displaying empty parking fame information, where if the density of points in the point cloud is equal to or more than a threshold, determining the object is present at a position corresponding to those points and if the density of points in the point cloud is less than the threshold, determining no object is present at the position corresponding to those points]’.
Claim(s) 3-6, 11, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. in view of Nakamura et al., Diner and further in view of Shimizu et al. (US-2021/0231810).
As to Claims 3 and 15, Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claims 1 and 12, respectively. Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner does not disclose expressly ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to display, on the display, the display image including second position identification information and the three-dimensional image, the second position identification information identifying a position of at least one of a distant object, a low reflective object, or a blind spot based on second position information indicating a position determined to correspond to, in the three-dimensional image, at least one of the distant object distant from the light receiver when the light receiver receives the light reflected from the object, the low reflective object having low reflectance with respect to projected light, or the blind spot with respect to the light receiver when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object’.
Shimizu teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to display, on the display, the display image including second position identification information and the three-dimensional image, the second position identification information identifying a position of at least one of a distant object, a low reflective object, or a blind spot based on second position information indicating a position determined to correspond to, in the three-dimensional image, at least one of the distant object distant from the light receiver when the light receiver receives the light reflected from the object, the low reflective object having low reflectance with respect to projected light, or the blind spot with respect to the light receiver when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object [Fig 9, par 0051, 0088-0089 – displaying position information in three-dimensional coordinates including a distance between two subjects of an omnidirectionally captured image of a camera that takes in light from a subject]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying position information, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to capturing an image of a subject over a wide range and allowing a user to know distance information to strongly recall the situation or impression during imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claims 3 and 15.
As to Claim 4, Okuyama in view of Nakamura, Diner and Shimizu teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to display the display image on the display based on the second position information indicating a position determined to have a density with respect to point cloud data with respect to the three-dimensional image lower than a threshold and determined to correspond to at least one of the distant object, the low reflective object, or the blind spot [Okuyama: Fig 5, par 0121, 0141 – displaying empty parking fame information, where if the density of points in the point cloud is equal to or more than a threshold, determining the object is present at a position corresponding to those points and if the density of points in the point cloud is less than the threshold, determining no object is present at the position corresponding to those points; Shimizu: Fig 9, par 0051, 0088-0089 – displaying position information in three-dimensional coordinates including a distance between two subjects of an omnidirectionally captured image of a camera that takes in light from a subject]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying position information, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to capturing an image of a subject over a wide range and allowing a user to know distance information to strongly recall the situation or impression during imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
As to Claim 5, Shimizu teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to display the display image on the display based on the second position information indicating a position determined to correspond to at least one of the distant object, the low reflective object, or the blind spot in the three-dimensional image based on the output of an image detector that captures an image of the object [Fig 9 (P2), par 0051, 0088-0089 – displaying position information in three-dimensional coordinates including a distance between two subjects of an omnidirectionally captured image of a camera]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying position information, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to capturing an image of a subject over a wide range and allowing a user to know distance information to strongly recall the situation or impression during imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
As to Claim 6, Shimizu teaches ‘further comprising: determining circuitry configured to determine a position corresponding to at least one of the distant object, the low reflective object, or the blind spot in the three- dimensional image, wherein the display control circuitry is configured to display the display image on the display based on a determination result of the determining circuitry unit [Fig 9 (P2), par 0088-0089 – displaying position information in three-dimensional coordinates including a distance between two subjects of an omnidirectionally captured image of a camera specified by a user]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying position information, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to capturing an image of a subject over a wide range and allowing a user to know distance information to strongly recall the situation or impression during imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
As to Claims 11 and 20, Shimizu teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to display on the display a three- dimensional image determined based on an output of the light receiver located at a first position and an output of the light receiver located at a second position different from the first position, and display the display image on the display including first position identification information identifying the first position and second position identification information identifying the second position [Fig 9 (P1, P2), par 0088-0089 – displaying captured image of two subjects P1 and P2 and position information of the subjects as three-dimensional coordinates]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying position information of two subjects, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to capturing an image of a subject over a wide range and allowing a user to know distance information to strongly recall the situation or impression during imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claims 11 and 20.
As to Claim 13, Shimizu teaches ‘further comprising: determining, based on an output of an image detector configured to capture an image of the object, a position in the three-dimensional image, the position in the three- dimensional image being of at least one of a distant object that is distant from the light receiver when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object, a low reflective object with respect to the light being projected, or a blind spot with respect to the light receiver when the light receiver receives light reflected from the object, wherein the displaying includes displaying on the display the display image including second position information indicating a position corresponding to at least one of the distant object, the low reflective object, or the blind spot, based on the second position information indicating the position determined in the determining [Fig 9, par 0051, 0088-0089 – displaying position information in three-dimensional coordinates including a distance between two subjects of an omnidirectionally captured image of a camera that takes in light from a subject]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Shimizu because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include displaying position information of two subjects, as taught by Shimizu. The motivation for doing so would have been to capturing an image of a subject over a wide range and allowing a user to know distance information to strongly recall the situation or impression during imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shimizu with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim(s) 7-10 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okuyama et al. in view of Nakamura et al., Diner and further in view of Marr et al. (US-2009/0300144).
As to Claims 7 and 16, Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner teaches all of the claimed elements/features as recited in independent claims 1 and 12, respectively. Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner does not disclose expressly ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to change a display area of the three- dimensional image to be displayed on the display by changing a position and an orientation of the virtual camera that is at the position of the viewpoint from where the three- dimensional image is viewed’.
Marr teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to change a display area of the three- dimensional image to be displayed on the display by changing a position and an orientation of the virtual camera that is at the position of the viewpoint from where the three- dimensional image is viewed [par 0020, 0047, 0028-0029, 0047 – changing a location or orientation of a virtual camera (i.e., camera POV) causes a shift in the scene that is displayed on the video display having 3D rendering capabilities]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Marr because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include changing a location or orientation of a virtual camera, as taught by Marr. The motivation for doing so would have been to sending pre-fetch vector including information regarding a point of view position and movement of the POV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Marr with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claims 7 and 16.
As to Claims 8 and 17, Marr teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to change the orientation of the virtual camera to a predetermined orientation when the position of the virtual camera is at a position identified by the position identification information [par 0028-0029 – camera orientation may include a viewing direction defined as a unit vector oriented perpendicular to a center of a narrow face of the camera frustum, where the viewing direction may change with a change in the pitch and/or yaw of the virtual camera]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Marr because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include changing a location or orientation of a virtual camera, as taught by Marr. The motivation for doing so would have been to sending pre-fetch vector including information regarding a point of view position and movement of the POV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Marr with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claims 8 and 17.
As to Claims 9 and 18, Marr teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to change the orientation of the virtual camera so that predetermined coordinates in the three-dimensional image are included in the display image [par 0028-0029, 0033-0034 – computing a potential future field of view (FOV) from the POV coordinates x, y, z and the velocity vector by displaying the pre-hint vector of the scene in a simulated environment with the changed orientation and angle]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Marr because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include changing a location or orientation of a virtual camera, as taught by Marr. The motivation for doing so would have been to sending pre-fetch vector including information regarding a point of view coordinates position and movement of the POV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Marr with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claims 9 and 18.
As to Claims 10 and 19, Okuyama in view of Marr teaches ‘wherein: the display control circuitry is configured to change the orientation of the virtual camera so that a low density portion having a density with respect to point cloud data with respect to the three-dimensional image lower than a threshold is included in the display image [Okuyama: par 0121, 0141 – displaying empty parking fame information, where if the density of points in the point cloud is equal to or more than a threshold, determining the object is present at a position corresponding to those points and if the density of points in the point cloud is less than the threshold, determining no object is present at the position corresponding to those points; Marr: par 0020, 0047, 0028-0029, 0033-0034, 0047 – changing a location or orientation of a virtual camera (i.e., camera POV) to display potential future field of view (FOV) from the POV which causes a shift in the scene that is displayed on the video display having 3D rendering capabilities]’.
Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner are analogous art with Marr because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely image/video capturing systems. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include changing a location or orientation of a virtual camera, as taught by Marr. The motivation for doing so would have been to sending pre-fetch vector including information regarding a point of view position and movement of the POV to a corresponding density frame. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Marr with Okuyama in view of Nakamura and Diner to obtain the invention as specified in claims 10 and 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record
a. US Patent No. 5,182,641
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530.
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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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.
/MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights