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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: Electronic device for controlling setting of imaging apparatus based on user-designated coordinates.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim 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.
The term “opposite” recited in claim 1 is unclear and confusing as to what constitutes an “opposite” transformation process. For example, some may consider an “opposite” process to involve performing the same steps in a reversed order, while others may consider an “opposite” process to involve inverting a manner in which each step is performed without changing the order of the steps.
The term “opposite” is similarly recited in claims 18, 19. Dependent claims 2-17 are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20170026565 A1) in view of Kuribayashi (JP 2015094788 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hong discloses an electronic device comprising: a processor; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the electronic device to (Fig. 3, [0067] image capturing apparatus including a processor and memory)
acquire position coordinates designated by a user in a display image obtained by performing first transformation processing on a captured image obtained by an imaging apparatus (Fig. 5B, [0107] acquire position of a region of interest based on user input (e.g. user touches a screen at the intended region of interest); [0052], [0106] determining the region of interest is based on a point as the center of a region of a certain radius (i.e. based on a specific coordinate location and a specific area around it) in an image displayed on a device screen; [0075], [0078] the captured data is processed so it can be displayed to the user on the screen);
perform control to perform a setting for the imaging apparatus, on a basis of the position coordinates in the captured image ([0052] controlling a setting (e.g. area of focus in image capturing) of the device based on the coordinates).
Hong fails to disclose to transform the position coordinates in the display image into position coordinates in the captured image by a second transformation processing opposite to the first transformation processing.
Kuribayashi, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of a display device and display control method including transformation and inverse transformation of image features ([0006], [0007]), discloses transform the position coordinates in the display image into position coordinates in the captured image by a second transformation processing opposite to the first transformation processing ([0023] calculating a spatial coordinate filter which has an effect opposite/inverse to a previously calculated spatial coordinate filter and an image including characteristics is transformed using the inverse filter; [0007] the characteristics refer to information specific to each coordinate point).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kuribayashi with Hong and transform the position coordinates in the display image into position coordinates in the captured image by a second transformation processing opposite to the first transformation processing, as disclosed by Kuribayashi, as part of an electronic device for controlling a setting of an image apparatus based on user input, as disclosed by Hong, for the purpose of displaying an easily viewable image to a user with an efficient computational load (See Kuribayashi [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 2, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as applied above. Hong further discloses when the program is executed by the processor, the program further causes the electronic device to perform control to display a part of the display image on a display device, wherein an area, in the display image, to be displayed on the display device is changeable ([0141]-[0142] a region of interest is displayed on the display image wherein the size of the region is changeable by the user).
Regarding claim 17, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as applied above. Hong further discloses wherein the control to set a focus position or a white balance reference position is performed on a basis of the position coordinates in the captured image ([0052] an area for focus in the image is set based on the coordinates of a user input in the captured image).
Regarding claim 18, Hong in view of Kuribayashi disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), with the addition of a control method of an electronic device (Fig. 3, [0067] method for controlling an electronic device).
Regarding claim 19, Hong in view of Kuribayashi disclose everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), with the addition of a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program, wherein the program causes a computer to execute a control method of an electronic device ([0067], [0156] non-transitory computer readable medium for storing a program for operating an image forming apparatus).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong (US 20170026565 A1) in view of Kuribayashi (JP 2015094788 A) in further view of Kim (KR 20140130313 A).
Regarding claim 3, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 2 as applied above.
Hong fails to disclose wherein the display device is a head-mounted display device.
Kim, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of an image display device including transformation and inverse transformation of the image (Abstract), discloses wherein the display device is a head-mounted display device (Fig. 1, page 6, paragraph 9: the display device is a head-mounted display).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Kim with Hong in view of Kuribayashi and utilize a display device which is a head-mounted displayed device, as disclosed by Kim, as part of an electronic device for controlling a setting of an image apparatus based on user input, as disclosed by Hong in view of Kuribayashi, for the purpose of providing a user with a method of interacting with both their surroundings and a virtual interface (See Kim, page 2 paragraph 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 2 as applied above. Hong further discloses wherein the captured image is an image obtained in a state where a specific lens unit is attached to the imaging apparatus (Fig. 3, [0069], [0070] a lens is attached to the imaging apparatus).
However, neither Hong nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses in a case where the specific lens unit is not attached to the imaging apparatus, the control to display a part of the display image on the display device is not performed.
Regarding claim 5, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Hong nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses the captured image is an image in which two fish-eye image areas having parallax with each other are arranged side by side, and the first transformation processing includes processing of transforming each of the two fish-eye image areas into an equidistant cylindrical image area.
Claims 6-8, 12 are dependent on claim 5 and thus recite similarly allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 9, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Hong nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein the captured image is an image in which two fish-eye image areas having parallax with each other are arranged side by side, and the first transformation processing includes processing of performing perspective projection transforming on each of the two fish-eye image areas.
Claims 10-11 are dependent on claim 9 and thus recite similarly allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as applied above. Hong further discloses the captured image is an image obtained in a state where a specific lens unit is attached to the imaging apparatus (Fig. 3, [0069], [0070] a lens is attached to the imaging apparatus and an image is captured).
However, neither Hong nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein when the program is executed by the processor, the program further causes the electronic device to acquire information related to the specific lens unit attached to the imaging apparatus, and the second transformation processing is performed on a basis of the information.
Claims 14-15 are dependent on claim 13 and thus recite similarly allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, Hong in view of Kuribayashi discloses the electronic device according to claim 1 as applied above. However, neither Hong nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein in a case where a user operation not to designate position coordinates in the display image is performed as a user operation for performing setting for the imaging apparatus, the second transformation processing is not performed, and control to perform the setting for the imaging apparatus is performed according to the user operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bradski (US 20160026253 A1) discloses presenting VR or AR experiences to users via head-mounted display including identifying coordinate points and performing processing on the image.
Son (US 20160086386 A1) discloses controlling a display in a VR head-mounted system including transforming an image including coordinates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675