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 .
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 6/22/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS(s) dated 1/21/2025 and 10/12/2024 that have been previously considered remain placed in the application file.
The IDS dated 5/6/2026 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 13-18 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 13-18 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments
In regards to Argument 1, Applicant states the typographical error in claim 18, which was previously objected to, has been corrected (See Remarks, page 9 under “Claim Objections”).
In regards to Argument 2, Applicant states Watanabe merely selects a viewpoint using touch/swipe/controller input and parameterizes that viewpoint using rotations about fixed x/y/z world-coordinate axes, and therefore fails to teach the amended limitation requiring the rotation axis selection control to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region (See Remarks, page 9-11 under “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103”).
In regards to Argument 3, Applicant states Shimura merely provides pre-set operation buttons for changing projection images and does not disclose a rotation axis selection control configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region (See Remarks, page 12 under “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103”).
In regards to Argument 4, Applicant states the motivation to combine is conclusory because “improving the viewing experience” identifies only a desired result . (See Remarks, page 13 under “Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103”
Examiner’s Response
In response to Argument 1, with respect to claim(s) 18, the Examiner has fully considered the Argument and has found it persuasive.
In response to Argument 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant alleges that Watanabe does not teach the amended limitation requiring the rotation axis selection control to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region.
The Examiner finds that the rejection is based on Watanabe in view of Shimura, not Watanabe alone. Watanabe in ¶43-44, 60 teaches a terminal/free-viewpoint generation architecture in which a viewing terminal selects viewpoint information and transmits user operations to the free-viewpoint video generation device. Shimura in ¶119 teaches a terminal interface having a rotation mode button in which the user designates an object on the screen and “can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis”. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests the selecting a rotation axis from available axes within an on-screen free-viewpoint/selection region.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach “displaying a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region”.
In response to Argument 3, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant alleges that Shimura merely provides pre-set operation buttons for changing projection images.
The Examiner finds that Shimura is not relied upon merely for a generic pre-set operation button. Shimura in ¶119 expressly discloses a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate and can set the rotation axis anywhere. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, setting a rotation axis anywhere in the on-screen free-viewpoint picture/rotation environment teaches selecting one rotation axis from a plurality of possible rotation axes in a section region. The claim does not require the exact Fig. 20b implementation or a fixed list of pre-labeled axes.
The opinion in In re Hiniker Co., 47 USPQ2d 1523 (Fed. Cir. 1998) stated "...the name of the game is the claim. See Giles Sutherland Rich, Extent of Protection and Interpretation of Claims--American Perspectives , 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop.& Copyright L. 497, 499 (1990) (“The U.S. is strictly an examination country and the main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what each claim defines is patentable. To coin a phrase, the name of the game is the claim.”)."
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach “displaying a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region”.
In response to Argument 4, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant alleges that the motivation to combine Watanabe and Shimura was merely conclusory.
The Examiner finds that Watanabe and Shimura are analogous art in the field of free-viewpoint video generation and terminal-side user control of free-viewpoint viewing. Watanabe provides the terminal/server free-viewpoint generation framework, and Shimura provides the specific terminal-side rotation-mode control in which a user designates an object and sets a rotation axis anywhere. It would have been obvious to incorporate Shimura’s rotation-axis selection functionality into Watanabe’s terminal-based free-viewpoint control so that the terminal can send a selected rotation-axis indication for generating a free-viewpoint video centered on the selected object/axis, yielding the predictable result of user-controlled generation of free-viewpoint video around a selected scene axis/object.
Applicant’s definition of “rationale” is unclear and believed to be in conflict with Supreme Court precedent. The Teaching-Suggestion-Motivation test was upheld by the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007). A statement or finding of fact is legally not a conclusion; stating a benefit of the combination is a statement of fact. An example of a conclusory statement would be "The combination is obvious." An ordinarily skilled artisan would know that a benefit, here enabling user-controlled generation of a free viewpoint video centered on a selected scene object/rotation axis, is a motivation to combine because audiences are always looking for more flexible, customizable, and interactive viewing angles in free viewpoint video content. Simply calling a reason conclusory does not diminish the value to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and it is not persuasive. If the implication of this argument was that this reasoning did not explicitly appear in the reference, user-controlled switching of viewpoint, viewpoint direction, and rotation in free viewpoint video was consistently discussed throughout Shimura, including at least ¶116-119.
The Examiner interprets the prior art to teach “displaying a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region”.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15 recites “the target rotation axis indicates a target subject the target subject is associated with…”. This appears to be a grammatical error/redundancy – it is unclear if punctuation was intended between “a target subject” and “the target subject”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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) 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Watanabe et al (JP2019145017A, hereafter referred to as Watanabe) in view of Shimura et al (US 20180146218 A1, hereafter referred to as Shimura).
Claim 13
Regarding Claim 13, Watanabe teaches A subject selection method implemented by a terminal device, the method comprising:
displaying a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control (Watanabe in ¶7 discloses “users can freely select the viewpoint by touching the screen of a dedicated controller”),
receiving a selection operation for a target rotation axis (Watanabe in ¶43 discloses receiving user viewpoint-selection operations through a controller, touch/swipe operation, or VR terminal movement); and
sending a selection indication for the target rotation axis to a server (Watanabe in ¶44 discloses that “The user operation detection unit 302 detects … virtual viewpoint operation RQ1 … by the terminal user” and sends the operation to “the free viewpoint video generation device 2 via the network”; ¶60 discloses that viewpoint information selected by the terminal user for “specifying the virtual viewpoint P … is transferred from the viewing terminal 3 to the free viewpoint video generation device 2”);
wherein the target rotation axis is configured to generate a free-viewpoint video with the target rotation axis as a rotation center of a viewing angle (Watanabe in ¶60 discloses that “the free viewpoint video generation unit 201 performs rendering based on the viewpoint information and each camera video to generate a free viewpoint video”).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach all of displaying a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region; receiving a selection operation for a target rotation axis; and sending a selection indication for the target rotation axis to a server, wherein the target rotation axis is configured to generate a free-viewpoint video with the target rotation axis as a rotation center of a viewing angle.
However, Shimura teaches displaying a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control (Shimura in ¶116 discloses that, in user terminal 3, a “projection image can be changed by the user … switching “viewpoint”, “viewpoint direction”, and “zooming/non-zooming””; ¶117 discloses “Operation buttons illustrated in FIGS. 11A to 11D are displayed outside a display region where a projection motion image is displayed in the user terminal 3”; ¶119 discloses “An operation button shown in FIG. 11D is a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate in a manner as illustrated in FIG. 13.”),
wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region (Shimura in ¶119 discloses “The user can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis” using the rotation mode button; ¶62 discloses “FIG. 13 illustrates rotation processing for spinning a target object in free viewpoint picture”; ¶118 discloses a “mode in which, a viewpoint is moved while being rotated about the specific axis in a free viewpoint space”);
receiving a selection operation for a target rotation axis (Shimura in ¶119 discloses “a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate … The user can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis”); and
sending a selection indication for the target rotation axis to a server (Shimura in ¶128 discloses “the CPU transmits the projection change processing from the user terminal to the distribution computer”),
wherein the target rotation axis is configured to generate a free-viewpoint video with the target rotation axis as a rotation center of a viewing angle (Shimura in ¶119 discloses “a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate … The user can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis”; ¶62 discloses “FIG. 13 illustrates rotation processing for spinning a target object in free viewpoint picture”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe by incorporating a rotation-mode interface in which a user designates an object/area on screen and sets a rotation axis anywhere that is taught by Shimura, since both reference are analogous art in -the field of free-viewpoint video generation systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Watanabe’s terminal/server free viewpoint generation framework with Shimura’s rotation-axis selection control yields the predictable result of generating free viewpoint video centered on a user-selected scene object/axis, thereby improving the viewing experience for users.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14
Regarding Claim 14, Watanabe in view of Shimura teaches The method according to claim 13, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select the rotation axis from a location point in a target region (Shimura in ¶119 discloses that the user can set the rotation axis anywhere using the rotation mode button; ¶118 discloses rotation about a specific axis in a free viewpoint space; ¶117 discloses the operation buttons are displayed outside the display region where the projection motion image is displayed in user terminal 3).
Claim 15
Regarding Claim 15, Watanabe in view of Shimura teaches The method according to claim 13 wherein:
the rotation axis selection control is configured to select the rotation axis from a plurality of subjects in a target region (Shimura in ¶119 discloses that the user designates an object on the screen to rotate and can set the rotation axis anywhere. Watanabe in ¶31 discloses that each object is estimated to exist in 3D space and that the texture of the object is extracted from a camera image; ¶26 discloses cameras arranged in a stadium or the like that capture an object such as an athlete from different viewpoints);
the target rotation axis indicates a target subject (Shimura in ¶119 discloses the user designates an object on the screen to rotate and sets the rotation axis for the spinning axis; ¶62 discloses rotation processing for spinning a target object in a free viewpoint picture)
the target subject is associated with a primary camera that captures the target subject (Watanabe in ¶33 discloses that the texture of the object is extracted from the camera image of the real camera cam having the closest angle in the line-of-sight direction to the virtual viewpoint P; ¶30 discloses generating a free viewpoint video by applying a plurality of camera videos with different viewpoints, camera parameters, and viewpoint information selected by the terminal user); and
a region in which the target subject is located in the free-viewpoint video is related to a region in which the target subject is in an image acquired by the primary camera (Watanabe in ¶33 discloses that texture of the object is cut out from the camera image of the real camera having the closest line of sight angle of the virtual viewpoint and pasted onto rectangular polygons; ¶34 discloses using a binary mask image representing the shape of the target object so that only the portion of the rectangular polygon where the target object exists is displayed; ¶47 discloses rendering by setting up a billboard facing the virtual viewpoint P and pasting acquired texture with a mask image to reconstruct the 3D space).
Claim 16
Regarding Claim 16, Watanabe teaches An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (Watanabe in ¶1 discloses a system and method for playing back replay footage of free viewpoint video); and
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor (Watanabe in ¶1 discloses a system and method for playing back replay footage of free viewpoint video) and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
display a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control (Watanabe in ¶7 discloses “users can freely select the viewpoint by touching the screen of a dedicated controller”),
receive a selection operation for a target rotation axis (Watanabe in ¶43 discloses receiving user viewpoint-selection operations through a controller, touch/swipe operation, or VR terminal movement); and
send a selection indication for the target rotation axis to a server (Watanabe in ¶44 discloses that “The user operation detection unit 302 detects … virtual viewpoint operation RQ1 … by the terminal user” and sends the operation to “the free viewpoint video generation device 2 via the network”; ¶60 discloses that viewpoint information selected by the terminal user for “specifying the virtual viewpoint P … is transferred from the viewing terminal 3 to the free viewpoint video generation device 2”);
wherein the target rotation axis is configured to generate a free-viewpoint video with the target rotation axis as a rotation center of a viewing angle (Watanabe in ¶60 discloses that “the free viewpoint video generation unit 201 performs rendering based on the viewpoint information and each camera video to generate a free viewpoint video”).
Watanabe does not explicitly teach all of display a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region; receive a selection operation for a target rotation axis; and send a selection indication for the target rotation axis to a server, wherein the target rotation axis is configured to generate a free-viewpoint video with the target rotation axis as a rotation center of a viewing angle.
However, Shimura teaches display a target interface comprising a rotation axis selection control (Shimura in ¶116 discloses that, in user terminal 3, a “projection image can be changed by the user … switching “viewpoint”, “viewpoint direction”, and “zooming/non-zooming””; ¶117 discloses “Operation buttons illustrated in FIGS. 11A to 11D are displayed outside a display region where a projection motion image is displayed in the user terminal 3”; ¶119 discloses “An operation button shown in FIG. 11D is a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate in a manner as illustrated in FIG. 13.”),
wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select a rotation axis from a plurality of rotation axes included in a rotation axis selection region (Shimura in ¶119 discloses “The user can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis” using the rotation mode button; ¶62 discloses “FIG. 13 illustrates rotation processing for spinning a target object in free viewpoint picture”; ¶118 discloses a “mode in which, a viewpoint is moved while being rotated about the specific axis in a free viewpoint space”);
receive a selection operation for a target rotation axis (Shimura in ¶119 discloses “a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate … The user can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis”); and
send a selection indication for the target rotation axis to a server (Shimura in ¶128 discloses “the CPU transmits the projection change processing from the user terminal to the distribution computer”),
wherein the target rotation axis is configured to generate a free-viewpoint video with the target rotation axis as a rotation center of a viewing angle (Shimura in ¶119 discloses “a rotation mode button by which the user designates an object on the screen to rotate … The user can set the rotation axis anywhere and rotate the spinning axis”; ¶62 discloses “FIG. 13 illustrates rotation processing for spinning a target object in free viewpoint picture”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Watanabe by incorporating a rotation-mode interface in which a user designates an object/area on screen and sets a rotation axis anywhere that is taught by Shimura, since both reference are analogous art in -the field of free-viewpoint video generation systems; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since Watanabe’s terminal/server free viewpoint generation framework with Shimura’s rotation-axis selection control yields the predictable result of generating free viewpoint video centered on a user-selected scene object/axis, thereby improving the viewing experience for users.
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17
Regarding Claim 17, Watanabe in view of Shimura teaches The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the rotation axis selection control is configured to select the rotation axis from a location point in a target region (Shimura in ¶119 discloses that the user can set the rotation axis anywhere using the rotation mode button; ¶118 discloses rotation about a specific axis in a free viewpoint space; ¶117 discloses the operation buttons are displayed outside the display region where the projection motion image is displayed in user terminal 3).
Claim 18
Regarding Claim 18, Watanabe in view of Shimura teaches The apparatus according to claim 16, wherein:
the rotation axis selection control is configured to select the rotation axis from a plurality of subjects in a target region (Shimura in ¶119 discloses that the user designates an object on the screen to rotate and can set the rotation axis anywhere. Watanabe in ¶31 discloses that each object is estimated to exist in 3D space and that the texture of the object is extracted from a camera image; ¶26 discloses cameras arranged in a stadium or the like that capture an object such as an athlete from different viewpoints);
the target rotation axis indicates a target subject (Shimura in ¶119 discloses the user designates an object on the screen to rotate and sets the rotation axis for the spinning axis; ¶62 discloses rotation processing for spinning a target object in a free viewpoint picture);
the target subject is associated with a primary camera that captures the target subject (Watanabe in ¶33 discloses that the texture of the object is extracted from the camera image of the real camera cam having the closest angle in the line-of-sight direction to the virtual viewpoint P; ¶30 discloses generating a free viewpoint video by applying a plurality of camera videos with different viewpoints, camera parameters, and viewpoint information selected by the terminal user); and
a region in which the target subject is located in the free-viewpoint video is related to a region in which the target subject is in an image acquired by the primary camera (Watanabe in ¶33 discloses that texture of the object is cut out from the camera image of the real camera having the closest line of sight angle of the virtual viewpoint and pasted onto rectangular polygons; ¶34 discloses using a binary mask image representing the shape of the target object so that only the portion of the rectangular polygon where the target object exists is displayed; ¶47 discloses rendering by setting up a billboard facing the virtual viewpoint P and pasting acquired texture with a mask image to reconstruct the 3D space).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN P CASCAIS whose telephone number is (703)756-5576. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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, Mr. O’Neal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/J.P.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/ONEAL R MISTRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Date: 7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights