DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a history management unit, a viewpoint determination unit, a viewpoint control unit, a determination unit, an identification unit, a candidate management unit, a transmission unit, a reception unit, an obtaining unit in claims 1-18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 5-13, 16, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakakima (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0279418).
As per claim 1, Sakakima teaches an information processing apparatus comprising:
a history management unit configured to manage a virtual viewpoint designated by a user operation as a virtual viewpoint history (¶ [66], “…an image generation method will be determined by using the history information of a virtual viewpoint designated via a virtual camera operation UI 125”. See also Fig. 8, and ¶ [67]);
a viewpoint determination unit configured to determine a virtual viewpoint based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit (¶ [67] referring to Fig. 8, “A history information obtainment unit 801 reads out the history information indicating a change in the time-axis direction of the virtual viewpoint information from the storage 204 and transmits the history information to a generation method determination unit 208”); and
a viewpoint control unit configured to set the virtual viewpoint determined by the viewpoint determination unit as a virtual viewpoint used to generate a virtual viewpoint image (¶ [72], referring to Fig. 9, steps 904-905).
As per claim 5, Sakakima does further teach a candidate management unit configured to manage one or more virtual viewpoint candidates, wherein the viewpoint determination unit selects a virtual viewpoint candidate from among the virtual viewpoint candidates managed by the candidate management unit based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint (see ¶ [70], “In this case, a subsequent viewpoint position can be estimated to a certain degree by using the history showing the movements (changes) of the virtual viewpoint up to that point. For example, the generation method determination unit 208 estimates the position and the orientation of the virtual viewpoint in a subsequent time based difference between the position and the orientation of the virtual viewpoint in the current time and the position and the orientation of the virtual viewpoint in a past time”. See also ¶ [72]).
As per claim 6, Sakakima does also teach wherein the candidate management unit manages, as the virtual viewpoint candidates, virtual viewpoints selectable by a user from among a plurality of virtual viewpoints (Fig. 19, ¶ [109]. It is noted that the selection of image generation method includes selecting virtual viewpoints according to Fig. 5A-B, ¶ [77]. See also Fig. 4, ¶ [56], based on the user gaze point).
As per claim 7, as addressed above, Sakakima also teaches wherein the candidate management unit manages, as the virtual viewpoint candidates, a plurality of virtual viewpoints provided depending on a type of a content viewed by a user (see Fig. 5B, ¶ [77], i.e., depending on the type of object).
As per claim 8, Sakakima does also teach wherein the viewpoint determination unit identifies a position of the virtual viewpoint designated by the user operation based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit, selects a virtual viewpoint candidate from among the virtual viewpoint candidates based on the identified position of the virtual viewpoint, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint (Fig. 4, ¶ [56], by approximating the position and the orientation of a virtual viewpoint).
As per claim 9, as addressed in claims 5 and 8 above, referring to ¶ [56], Sakakima does also teaches wherein the viewpoint determination unit identifies a position of a virtual viewpoint last designated by the user operation based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit, selects a virtual viewpoint candidate located at a position closest to the identified position of the virtual viewpoint from among the virtual viewpoint candidates, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint.
As per claim 10, as addressed, Sakakima does further teach wherein the viewpoint determination unit identifies a movement path of the virtual viewpoint designated by the user operation based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit (¶ [67], i.e., time-axis direction of the virtual viewpoint, and ¶ [70], the history showing the movements (changes) of the virtual viewpoint up to that point), selects a virtual viewpoint candidate from among the virtual viewpoint candidates based on the identified movement path of the virtual viewpoint, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint (¶ [70]).
As per claim 11, as addressed in claims 4 and 10 above, Sakakima does teach wherein the viewpoint determination unit identifies a subject of interest of a user (see claim 4) based on the identified movement path of the virtual viewpoint (see claim 10), selects a virtual viewpoint candidate for the subject of interest from among the virtual viewpoint candidates, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint (claim 4).
As per claim 12, Sakakima further teaches a transmission unit configured to transmit information about the virtual viewpoint set by the viewpoint control unit to an image generation apparatus based on a plurality of images captured for each of a plurality of viewpoints, the image generation apparatus being configured to generate a virtual viewpoint image corresponding to a virtual viewpoint (¶ [41]);
a reception unit configured to receive the virtual viewpoint image generated by the image generation apparatus based on the virtual viewpoint set by the viewpoint control unit (¶ [48] referring to Fig. 1); and
a display unit configured to display the received virtual viewpoint image (Fig. 1, ¶ [43], display at end user terminal).
As per claim 13, as addressed, Sakakima does further teach an obtaining unit configured to obtain virtual viewpoints used to generate a virtual viewpoint image that is being generated or is already generated by the image generation apparatus (¶ [48]); and
a candidate management unit configured to manage the virtual viewpoints obtained by the obtaining unit as virtual viewpoint candidates, wherein the viewpoint determination unit selects a virtual viewpoint candidate from among the virtual viewpoint candidates managed by the candidate management unit based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint (addressed in claim 5).
As per claim 16, Sakakima does further teach wherein the viewpoint determination unit determines a viewing tendency of a user based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit, and determines the virtual viewpoint based on the viewing tendency of the user (see ¶ [70], “…a subsequent viewpoint position can be estimated to a certain degree by using the history showing the movements (changes) of the virtual viewpoint up to that point”).
Claim 19, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20, which is similar in scope to claim 1 as addressed above, is thus rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claims 4, 14, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakima (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0279418).
As per claim 4, Sakakima does not expressly teach an identification unit configured to identify a subject from the virtual viewpoint image generated based on the set virtual viewpoint, the virtual viewpoint designated by the user operation being set as the virtual viewpoint used to generate the virtual viewpoint image, wherein the history management unit associates information about the subject identified by the identification unit with the virtual viewpoint designated by the user operation, and includes the information in the virtual viewpoint history to manage the information. However, Sakakima, at ¶ [74] referring to Fig. 10, does teach “An object type estimation unit 1001 estimates an object in a virtual viewpoint image and the type of the object based on the virtual viewpoint information obtained by a viewpoint information obtainment unit 209. A captured image input for the generation of a virtual viewpoint image is used to estimate an object present in the virtual viewpoint image” (see also ¶ [77]), thus, implying identifying a subject from the virtual viewpoint image generated based on the set virtual viewpoint used to generate the virtual viewpoint image. Therefore, in combination with the virtual viewpoint history management as addressed in claim 1, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to associate information about the identified subject as addressed above with the virtual viewpoint history information since this is implicitly included therein.
As per claim 14, Sakakima does not expressly teach a candidate management unit configured to manage, as virtual viewpoint candidates, one or more virtual viewpoints used to generate a virtual viewpoint image for which different amounts of money are
charged in a case where the different amounts of money are charged for each of the virtual
viewpoints to generate the virtual viewpoint image by the image generation apparatus,
wherein the candidate management unit sets virtual viewpoint candidates selected from among the managed virtual viewpoint candidates based on the charged amounts of money as virtual viewpoint candidates used for the viewpoint determination unit to determine the virtual viewpoint. However, as addressed in claims 5 and 11, Sakakima does teach managing one or more virtual viewpoint candidates, selecting a virtual viewpoint candidate for the subject of interest from among the virtual viewpoint candidates, and determines the selected virtual viewpoint candidate as the virtual viewpoint. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakakima to charge different amount of money based on the selectable virtual viewpoints since this is the intended use of the invention.
As per claim 15, as addressed in claim 14, although not explicitly taught, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Sakakima such that the candidate management unit sets virtual viewpoint candidates for which no money is charged, a predetermined amount of money or less is charged, or the charged amount of money falls within a specific range, as virtual viewpoint candidates used for the viewpoint determination unit to determine the virtual viewpoint since this is also the intended use of the invention.
As per claim 18, Sakakima impliedly teaches the history management unit further manages, for each subject, a history of orientations of the subject viewed from the virtual viewpoint, and wherein the viewpoint determination unit determines the viewing tendency of the user based on the history of orientations of the subject managed by the history management unit (¶ [70], “For example, the generation method determination unit 208 estimates the position and the orientation of the virtual viewpoint in a subsequent time based difference between the position and the orientation of the virtual viewpoint in the current time and the position and the orientation of the virtual viewpoint in a past time”).
Claims 2, 3, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakakima (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2019/0279418) in view of Shimura (US. Patent App. Pub. No. 2018/0146218).
As per claim 2, Sakakima does not explicitly teach a determination unit configured to determine a non-operating state in which a user operation for designating the virtual viewpoint is not performed for a predetermined period of time,
wherein, in a case where the determination unit determines the non-operating state, the viewpoint determination unit determines the virtual viewpoint based on the virtual viewpoint history held in the history management unit prior to the determination of the non-operating state.
However, in a very similar method as that of Sakakima (see ¶ [24-25]), Shimura teaches this feature, i.e., determine a non-operating state in which a user operation for designating the virtual viewpoint is not performed for a predetermined period of time, and determines the virtual viewpoint based on the virtual viewpoint history held in the history management unit prior to the determination of the non-operating state (see Fig. 5A, ¶ [110], i.e., by using the initial settings when the recommended user is not present (i.e., non-operating state)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method as taught by Shimura into the method as taught by Sakakima as addressed above, the advantage of which is to use the default settings of the viewpoint from viewpoint history information when the user is not available.
As per claim 3, although not explicitly taught by Sakakima, Shimura does teach wherein in a case where a specific user operation is performed, the viewpoint determination unit determines the virtual viewpoint based on the virtual viewpoint history managed by the history management unit (¶ [24-25], “In a free viewpoint picture data distribution system according to the present invention, if a change history of viewpoint direction also matches in addition to the viewpoint change history, such user-specific operation data is determined as the target user-specific operation data”). Thus, claim 3 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
As per claim 17, Sakakima fails to explicitly teach the history management unit further manages, for each subject, a history of total times during which the subject is present in the virtual viewpoint image, and wherein the viewpoint determination unit determines the viewing tendency of the user based on the history of total times for each subject managed by the history management unit. However, as addressed in claim 16, Sakakima does teach determining the viewing tendency of the user based on the viewpoint history (¶ [70], i.e., for estimating subsequent virtual viewpoint from virtual viewpoint in a past time). Shimura, as shown in Fig 5A-D, teach multiple viewpoints at different times are recorded (¶ [94]) and used for re-creating virtual viewpoint (¶ [113], implying recording number of times subject is present). Because Sakakima teaches determining viewing tendency and Shimura teaches recording the number of times the subject is present, the combined teachings do impliedly include the above features. Thus, claim 17 would have been obvious over the combined references for the reason above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hau H. Nguyen whose telephone number is: 571-272-7787. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI from 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard, can be reached on (571) 272-7773.
The fax 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).
/HAU H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611