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 .
Election/Restrictions
[1] Applicant's traverse of species requirement in the reply filed on December 2, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examination of the entire claim set would not be a serious burden. This is found to be persuasive however the examiner reserves to right to reintroduce the species requirement if future claim amendments create a serious burden.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
[2] Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The combination of claims 1, 4 and 5 are not supported in the originally filed application JP 2022-143496. In the event the applicant disagrees, examiner’s requests the applicant provide an English translation and identify the sections that support the combination of claims 1, 4 and 5. Applicant remarks on December 2, 2025 identified figure 20 as providing support. However, there is no mention of chromaticity in figure 20.
[3] Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant regards as the invention. Usage of the term “select a first environment light map” is indefinite since the environment light map was already selected in claim 1. Applicant remarks on December 2, 2025 are not supported by the specification. If the applicant disagrees, the examiner’s requests applicant to identify how figure 20 supports claims 2 and 4 in combination with claim 1.
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.
[4] Claims 1, 2, 4 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schritter et al. (“Schritter”) [US 10,607,567].
Regarding claim 1, Schritter discloses the claim limitation as follows:
An information processing apparatus (i.e. fig. 6) comprising: a processor (i.e. 608) configured to: acquire a feature amount related to brightness distribution (i.e. determining color values) from a first image (i.e. received image, fig. 1a) captured at an observation location (i.e. fig. 1a) [fig. 1a; col. 27, ll. 4-30]; select an environment light map (i.e. LUT) that is similar to the feature amount (i.e. average difference in color values of LUT and image is less than the threshold), from among a plurality of environment light maps prepared in advance (i.e. multiple LUTs are stored) [col. 27, ll. 4-30]; and control expression of a second image (i.e. rendering the image, fig. 1c) corresponding to an article (i.e. 142) observed at the observation location using the selected environment light map (i.e. LUT) [fig. 1c; col. 27, ll. 4-30].
Regarding claim 2, Schritter discloses the claim limitation as follows:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select a first environment light map (i.e. LUT) that is similar to an average brightness of the first image (i.e. average difference in color values of LUT and image is less than the threshold), from among a plurality of environment light maps that are similar to the feature amount (i.e. multiple LUTs are stored), and control expression of the second image using the first environment light map (i.e. rendering the image, fig. 1c) [fig. 1c; col. 27, ll. 4-30].
Regarding claim 4, Schritter discloses the claim limitation as follows:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to select a first environment light map (i.e. LUT) that is similar to a chromaticity (i.e. color includes chromaticity) of the first image (i.e. average difference in color values of LUT and image is less than the threshold), from among a plurality of environment light maps that are similar to the feature amount (i.e. multiple LUTs are stored), and controls expression of the second image using the first environment light map (i.e. rendering the image, fig. 1c) [fig. 1c; col. 27, ll. 4-30].
Regarding claim 9, Schritter discloses the claim limitation as follows:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to acquire the feature amount (i.e. determining color values) from an illuminated portion of the first image (i.e. specific object) [col. 27, ll. 4-30].
Regarding claims 10 and 11, these claims are rejected under similar reasoning to claim 1.
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.
[5] Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schritter et al. (“Schritter”) [US 10,607,567] in view of Mori [US 2004/0213457].
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Schritter discloses the claim limitations set forth in the rejection of claims 2 and 4.
Schritter does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to generate a second environment light map that is closer to the average brightness of the first image by correcting the first environment light map, and control expression of the second image using the second environment light map.
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to generate a second environment light map that is closer to the chromaticity of the first image by correcting the first environment light map, and control expression of the second image using the second environment light map.
However, in the same field of endeavor Mori discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to generate a second environment light map (i.e. multiplication of F[x] and ΔY) that is closer to the average brightness of the first image by correcting the first environment light map (i.e. F[x]), and control expression of the second image using the second environment light map (i.e. Y image output) [fig. 5].
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to generate a second environment light map (i.e. multiplication of F[u+128] and ΔS and multiplication of F[v+128] and ΔS) that is closer to the chromaticity of the first image by correcting the first environment light map (i.e. F[u+128] and F[v+128]), and control expression of the second image using the second environment light map (i.e. U+128 and V+128 image output) [fig. 13].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Schritter with Mori and correct the environment light map, the reasoning being to customize the environment light map to a particular image [Mori: abstract].
[6] Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schritter et al. (“Schritter”) [US 10,607,567] in view of Yamada [US 2007/0091341].
Regarding claims 6-8, Schritter discloses the claim limitations set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Schritter does not explicitly disclose the following claim limitations:
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display an index that represents a gloss degree of the environment light map that is used to generate the second image, the index being displayed in association with the second image.
7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the environment light map that is used to generate the second image, the environment light map being displayed in association with the second image.
8. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display one or more environment light maps that are similar to the feature amount of the first image, the one or more environment light maps being displayed in association with the second image.
However, in the same field of endeavor Yamada discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display an index that represents a gloss degree (i.e. sharpness amount) of the environment light map (i.e. tone correction) that is used to generate the second image (i.e. 210), the index (i.e. sharpness amount) being displayed in association with the second image (i.e. 210) [fig. 5].
7. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display the environment light map (i.e. tone correction) that is used to generate the second image (i.e. 210), the environment light map (i.e. tone correction) being displayed in association with the second image (i.e. 210) [fig. 5].
8. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display one or more environment light maps (i.e. tone correction) that are similar to the feature amount of the first image, the one or more environment light maps (i.e. tone correction) being displayed in association with the second image (i.e. 210) [fig. 5].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teachings of Schritter with Yamada and display the environment light map with the second image, the reasoning being to provide visual feedback to the user [Yamada: 0038].
Conclusion
[7] Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SATH V PERUNGAVOOR whose telephone number is (571)272-7455. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-5 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, COLLEEN FAUZ can be reached at (571) 272-1667. 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.
SATH V PERUNGAVOOR
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/SATH V PERUNGAVOOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights