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
Amendment, filed on 03/05/2026, has been entered.
Claims 1-16 are pending with claims 1 and 13-16 being amended.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s Note
The instant application has a lengthy prosecution history and the examiner encourages the applicant to have an interview (telephonic or personal) with the examiner prior to filing a response to the instant office action. Also, prior to the interview the examiner encourages the applicant to present multiple possible claim amendments, so as to enable the examiner to identify claim amendments that will advance prosecution in a meaningful manner.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but they are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-12, 15 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohara et al. (“Tohara”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2018/0041699 A1] in view of Sharma et al. (“Sharma”) [U.S Patent Application Pub. 2023/0324686 A1] in further view of Lang (“Lang”) [US 2019/0333480 A1]
Regarding claim 1, Tohara meets the claim limitations as follows:
An information processing apparatus [Fig. 1: ‘a configuration of a video see-through HMD’] comprising:
at least one processor (e.g. ‘102’) [Fig. 1; para. 0068] operatively coupled to a memory, serving as:
an image obtaining unit that obtains a captured image [Fig. 1: image inputter ‘115’; Fig. 10: ‘S301’; para. 0026: ‘the HMD 100 includes an image inputer/outputer 115];
an image processing unit that generates a displayed image [Fig. 1, 2: The left-eye display unit ‘106’; the right-eye display unit ‘107’; ‘the PC board 120 perform, …, image processing’] with a lesser angle of view (i.e. ‘display angle of view’) than the captured image by cutting out part of the captured image (i.e. ‘image-capturing angle of view’) [Fig. 3, 6-8; para. 0033, 0063, 0065-0066]; and
a setting unit that sets a control parameter for performing an adjustment to increase brightness of the entire displayed image such that the brightness of the displayed image is higher than a brightness of a region in the captured image corresponding to a region of the displayed image, based on the region of the displayed image and a high luminance region [Fig. 3C, 7C, 8C show a high luminance region] (i) having a higher luminance than other regions and (ii) being outside the angle of view of the displayed image in the captured image.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a setting unit that sets a control parameter for performing an adjustment to increase brightness of the entire displayed image such that the brightness of the displayed image is higher than a brightness of a region in the captured image corresponding to a region of the displayed image, based on the region of the displayed image and a high luminance region (i) having a higher luminance than other regions and (ii) being outside the angle of view of the displayed image in the captured image.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
a setting unit (i.e. ‘Compute Scene Brightness’; ‘Estimate Display Brightness’; ‘Compute Contrast’) [Fig. 7: ‘520’;’526’; ‘522’] that sets a control parameter (i.e. ‘Contrast greater than threshold’) [Fig. 7: ‘528’] for performing an adjustment to increase brightness (i.e. ‘able to increase display brightness’) [Fig. 7: ‘532’] of the entire display(i.e. display 508) [Fig. 7] such that the brightness of the displayhigher than a brightness of a region in the captured image (i.e. ‘204’ of ‘202’) corresponding to a region of the displayed image (e.g. tiger ‘212’ in ‘an area 204 (e.g., having a window)’) [Figs. 2, 3; para. 0031-0034: disclosing dimming the captured image (i.e. scene 202 or 204) against the entire displayed image (i.e. the tiger ‘212’). Obviously, it is equivalently “increasing brightness of the entire displayed image higher than brightness of the captured image”], based on the region of the displayed image and a high luminance region (i) having a higher luminance than other regions and (ii) being outside the angle of view of the displayed image in the captured image [Figs. 2-7, 10; para. 0031-0056, 0067: show ‘the dimming capability’ with respect to Figs. 2, 3].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Sharma does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a setting unit that sets a control parameter for performing an adjustment to increase brightness of the entire displayed image such that the brightness of the displayed image is higher than a brightness of a region in the captured image corresponding to a region of the displayed image….
However in the same field of endeavor Lang discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
a setting unit that sets a control parameter for performing an adjustment to increase brightness (i.e. ‘Increasing the display intensity’) of the entire displayed image (i.e. ‘virtual data’) such that the brightness of the displayed image is higher than a brightness of a region in the captured image (i.e. ‘live data’) [para. 0307] corresponding to a region of the displayed image….
Tohara, Sharma and Lang are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara, Sharma and Lang as motivation to equivalently increase brightness of the entire displayed image, “resulting in a pupillary constriction thereby further decreasing the visibility of less intense light reflect from the target area [Lang: para. 0307].
Regarding claim 2, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit determines contribution ratios of luminance of the captured image and luminance of the displayed image (e.g., ‘a virtual image 212 (e.g. a tiger)’) to the brightness of the displayed image, depending on a position of the high luminance region with respect to the region corresponding to the displayed image.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the setting unit determines contribution ratios of luminance (e.g. between 10% and 90%) of the captured image and luminance of the displayed image to the brightness of the displayed image, depending on a position of the high luminance region with respect to the region corresponding to the displayed image [para. 0052: ‘The transparency of transparency modulator layer 450 may be modulated to various levels between 10% transparent and 90% transparent or other ranges, in response to the eye data, the ambient light measurement, display brightness, etc. for example’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 3, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the setting unit determines the contribution ratios of the luminance of the captured image and the luminance of the displayed image based on a distance from the high luminance region to a boundary of the captured image and a distance from the high luminance region to a boundary of the displayed image.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the setting unit determines the contribution ratios of the luminance of the captured image and the luminance of the displayed image (e.g., ‘a virtual image 212 (e.g. a tiger)’) based on a distance from the high luminance region to a boundary of the captured image and a distance from the high luminance region to a boundary of the displayed image [Fig. 2B, 3B; para. 0036: ‘The dimming in FIG. 3B may involve a 10% transparency of scene light 191, as compared to a 20% transparency of scene light 191 in FIG. 2B’. It discloses the contribution ratio of the luminance of the ‘tiger’ virtual image over the scene light in Fig. 3B is higher than the contribution ratio of luminance in Fig. 2B since the “tiger” is displayed on the ‘window region’ (i.e. based on the distance)].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 4, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 2.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the setting unit sets the contribution ratio of the luminance of the displayed image such that the closer the position of the high luminance region to the region corresponding to the displayed image is, the higher the contribution ratio is.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the setting unit sets the contribution ratio of the luminance of the displayed image (e.g., ‘a virtual image 212 (e.g. a tiger)’) such that the closer the position of the high luminance region to the region corresponding to the displayed image is, the higher the contribution ratio is [Fig. 2B, 3B; para. 0036: ‘The dimming in FIG. 3B may involve a 10% transparency of scene light 191, as compared to a 20% transparency of scene light 191 in FIG. 2B’. It discloses the contribution ratio of the luminance of the ‘tiger’ virtual image over the scene light in Fig. 3B is higher than the contribution ratio of luminance in Fig. 2B since the “tiger” is displayed on the ‘window region’ ].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 5, Tohara and Tohara meets the claim limitations as follows:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the high luminance region is a region formed of a pixel group with pixels values equal to or greater [it’s obvious to enhance the “high” luminance otherwise there is no “high luminance” image displayed] than a predetermined luminance value [Tohara: Figs. 3C, 7C, 8C disclose display of “high luminance” region; Sharma: Figs. 4-11; para. 0031-0056, 0067: show ‘the dimming capability’ with respect to Figs. 2, 3].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 6, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the setting unit includes a calculation unit that calculates an absolute difference between a representative value of luminance of the captured image and a representative value of luminance of the displayed image, and in a case when the absolute difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold, the setting unit maximizes a contribution ratio of the luminance of the displayed image.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the setting unit includes a calculation unit that calculates an absolute difference (i.e. ‘a contrast or contrast value for the virtual content is compared based on … first, second, and third inputs [Figs. 5-11; para. 0060]) between a representative value of luminance of the captured image and a representative value of luminance of the displayed image, and in a case when the absolute difference is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold [Figs. 5-11: Is contrast greater than threshold ‘528’: ‘Yes’], the setting unit maximizes a contribution ratio of the luminance of the displayed image [Figs. 5-11: Fig. 5-11: ‘Yes’: Do nothing at the computed contrast for virtual content ‘522’; para. 0061: ‘contrast values above threshold (and up to a certain maximum value)’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 7, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, in the case when the absolute difference is less than the predetermined threshold, the setting unit maximizes a contribution ratio of the luminance of the captured image.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, in the case when the absolute difference (i.e. ‘a contrast or contrast value for the virtual content is compared based on … first, second, and third inputs [Figs. 5-11; para. 0060]) is less than the predetermined threshold [Figs. 5-11: Is contrast greater than threshold ‘528’: ‘No’], the setting unit maximizes a contribution ratio of the luminance of the captured image (i.e. ‘the computed contrast’ for the virtual content) [Figs. 5-11: Fig. 5-11: No: Able to increase Display Brightness ‘532’; para. 0060, 0064-0065: ‘the brightness of display 508 may be increased so as to increase the contrast’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 8, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein each of the representative values is one of a maximum value, an average value, and a median value.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein each of the representative values is one of a maximum value [See rejection of claim 6 limitation “the setting unit maximizes a contribution ratio of the luminance of the displayed image’; para. 0069: ‘the peak brightness of scene 502’], an average value [para. 0069: ‘the average brightness over the ROI’], and a median value [para. 0069: ‘the variance in brightness over the ROI’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 9, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control parameter is an imaging parameter of an imaging apparatus.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the control parameter is an imaging parameter of an imaging apparatus [Figs. 5-11: ‘Change Optical Transmission of Dimming Element; 524; para. 0061: ‘adjustment (e.g. dimming) of the optical transmission of dimming element 506’; para. 0065: ‘The change in transmission can vary between 0% to 100%’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 10, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the imaging parameter is an imaging parameter for adjusting exposure of the imaging apparatus.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the imaging parameter is an imaging parameter for adjusting exposure (i.e. ‘to modulate a transmission of the scene light’) [Abstract, para. 0018, 0022: to modulate a transmission of the scene light means ‘to adjust exposure’] of the imaging apparatus [Figs. 5-11: ‘Change Optical Transmission of Dimming Element; 524; para. 0061: ‘adjustment (e.g. dimming) of the optical transmission of dimming element 506’; para. 0065: ‘The change in transmission can vary between 0% to 100%’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 11, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the imaging parameter is an imaging parameter for adjusting an exposure determination region of the imaging apparatus.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the imaging parameter is an imaging parameter for adjusting an exposure determination region (i.e. ‘a region of interest (ROI)) [para. 0037] of the imaging apparatus [Figs. 5-11: ‘Change Optical Transmission of Dimming Element; 524; para. 0031, 0061: ‘a dimming element that is configured to control an amount (e.g. intensity) of scene light 191’; ‘adjustment (e.g. dimming) of the optical transmission of dimming element 506’; para. 0065: ‘The change in transmission can vary between 0% to 100%’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 12, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control parameter is an image processing parameter for adjusting the brightness of the displayed image in the image processing unit.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
wherein the control parameter is an image processing parameter for adjusting the brightness of the displayed image (e.g., ‘a virtual image 212 (e.g. a tiger)’ [Fig. 2-3]) [Figs. 4-11: ‘Display Controller 514’; para. 0056] in the image processing unit.
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Regarding claim 15, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the method form and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, all claim limitations are set forth as claim 1 in the form of ‘A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program’ [Tohara: Fig. 1; para 0021-0022: ‘an image processing program as a computer program’] and rejected as per discussion for claim 1.
Claims 13 and 14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tohara in view of Sharma in further view of Lang in further view of Shimano et al. (“Shimano”) [US 2006/0165395 A1]
Regarding claim 13, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1 and the limitation “wherein the at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory” [para. 0068].
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor operatively coupled to the memory, further serves as
a deriving unit that derives a luminance image based on the captured image;
a display control unit that displays the displayed image on a video see-through head mounted display including an imaging apparatus; and
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display,
wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image and the movement amount in a storage apparatus in association with each other and, in a case when the luminance image associated with the movement amount obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the luminance image from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
a deriving unit (i.e. ‘a light sensor’ or ‘An ambient light sensor 516’) that derives a luminance image based on the captured image [Fig. 5; para. 0019, 0057: ‘An ambient light sensor 516 is configured to generate light data in response to measuring light at scene 502 in the external environment of the head mounted device’];
a display control unit (i.e. ‘Display Controller [Fig. 5: ‘512’ ] that displays the displayed image [para. 0056: ‘Display 508 may be operated/controlled by a display controller 512’] on a video see-through head mounted display including an imaging apparatus; and
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display [para.0019: ‘with the monitoring, …in an automatic and more efficient manner as the user moves within or between scenes’. It suggests an unit of movement monitor], wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image [para. 0044: ‘virtual images are stored’] and the movement amount in a storage apparatus in association with each other and,
in a case when the luminance image associated with the movement amount obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the luminance image from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount [para. 0019: ‘to more accurately monitor brightness in the scene ,,,., determine whether some adjustments being performed in an automatic and more efficient manner as the user moves within or between scenes’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Sharma does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display,
wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image and the movement amount in a storage apparatus in association with each other and, in a case when the luminance image associated with the movement amount obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the luminance image from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount.
However in the same field of endeavor Shimano discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display [Fig. 1, 2, 6, 7; para. 0084: ‘to save a history of a movement of an image capturing camera’],
wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image [Fig. 1, 2, 6, 7; para. 0105, 0107-0108: ‘correction is performed when the image is being stored’; image data captured by the camera 41 is stored’; ‘performing correction of the roll amount, an easily-browsable motion picture can be saved’] and the movement amount [Fig. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11; para. 0084: ‘to save a history of a movement of an image capturing camera’] in a storage apparatus in association with each other and, in a case when the luminance image associated with the movement amount [Fig. 1, 2, 6, 7; para. 0105, 0107-0108: ‘correction is performed when the image is being stored’; image data captured by the camera 41 is stored’; ‘performing correction of the roll amount, an easily-browsable motion picture can be saved’] obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the luminance image from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount.
Tohara, Sharma, Lang and Shimano are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara, Sharma, Lang and Shimano as motivation to save motion/roll amount and images for an easily-browsable motion picture to be corrected [Shimano: para. 0006-0015: “Problems that the Invention is to Solve”].
Regarding claim 14, Tohara meets the claim limitations set forth in claim 1.
Tohara does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising:
a deriving unit that derives a luminance image based on the captured image;
a display control unit that displays the displayed image on a video see-through head mounted display including an imaging apparatus; and
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display,
wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image and the control parameter in a storage apparatus in association with each other and, in a case when the control parameter associated with the movement amount obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the control parameter from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount.
However in the same field of endeavor Sharma discloses the deficient claim as follows [Figs 4-11]:
a deriving unit (i.e. ‘a light sensor’ or ‘An ambient light sensor 516’) that derives a luminance image based on the captured image [Fig. 5; para. 0019, 0057: ‘An ambient light sensor 516 is configured to generate light data in response to measuring light at scene 502 in the external environment of the head mounted device’];
a display control unit (i.e. ‘Display Controller [Fig. 5: ‘512’ ] that displays the displayed image [para. 0056: ‘Display 508 may be operated/controlled by a display controller 512’] on a video see-through head mounted display including an imaging apparatus; and
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display [para.0019: ‘with the monitoring, …in an automatic and more efficient manner as the user moves within or between scenes’. It suggests an unit of movement monitor], wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image [para. 0044: ‘virtual images are stored’] and the control parameter in a storage apparatus in association with each other and,
in a case when the control parameter associated with the movement amount obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the control parameter from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount [para. 0019: ‘to more accurately monitor brightness in the scene ,,,., determine whether some adjustments being performed in an automatic and more efficient manner as the user moves within or between scenes’].
Tohara and Sharma are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara and Sharma as motivation to include display controllers (e.g. ‘514’ or ‘512’) [Sharma: Figs. 4-11] to improve the visibility of virtual image(s) superimposed on a scene [Sharm: para. 0052].
Sharma does not disclose explicitly the following claim limitations (emphasis added):
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display,
wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image and the control parameter in a storage apparatus in association with each other and, in a case when the control parameter associated with the movement amount obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the control parameter from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount.
However in the same field of endeavor Shimano discloses the deficient claim as follows:
a movement amount obtaining unit that obtains a movement amount of the head mounted display [Fig. 1, 2, 6, 7; para. 0084: ‘to save a history of a movement of an image capturing camera’],
wherein the deriving unit stores the luminance image [Fig. 1, 2, 6, 7; para. 0105, 0107-0108: ‘correction is performed when the image is being stored’; image data captured by the camera 41 is stored’; ‘performing correction of the roll amount, an easily-browsable motion picture can be saved’] and the control parameter (i.e. ‘Roll control section’) [Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9; para. 0084: ‘to save a history of a movement of an image capturing camera’] in a storage apparatus in association with each other and, in a case when the control parameter associated with the movement amount [Fig. 1, 2, 5, 9; para. 0105, 0107-0108: ‘correction is performed when the image is being stored’; image data captured by the camera 41 is stored’; ‘performing correction of the roll amount, an easily-browsable motion picture can be saved’] obtained from the movement amount obtaining unit is present in the storage apparatus, derives the control parameter from the storage apparatus based on the movement amount.
Tohara, Sharma, Lang and Shimano are combinable because they are from the same field of head mounted devices.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine teachings of Tohara, Sharma, Lang and Shimano as motivation to save motion/roll amount and images for an easily-browsable motion picture to be corrected [Shimano: para. 0006-0015: “Problems that the Invention is to Solve”].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER D LE whose telephone number is (571)270-5382. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Alternate Friday: 10AM-6:30PM.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached on 571-272-7455. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER D LE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights