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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the newly amended claim language, Applicant argues: “Applicant submits the references of Damveld and Ravi, alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest every feature of the current listing of claims and therefore is not obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art. … nothing in Damveld is seen to suggest the amended configuration of claim 1 of controlling to display a first screen for editing the moving image, wherein in the first screen, a section in the moving image, during which the particular symptom is likely to be experienced, is notified to an editing user.”
Examiner notes the updated reasons for rejection below reflect the amened claim language.
Claim Construction
Note that, for purposes of compact prosecution, multiple reasons for rejection may be provided for a claim or a part of the claim. The rejection reasons are cumulative, and Applicant should review all the stated reasons as guides to improving the claim language and advancing the prosecution toward an allowance.
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed by a method claim, or by claim language that does not limit an apparatus claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are: (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses; (B) “wherein” clauses; and (C) “whereby” clauses. M.P.E.P. 2111.04. Other examples are where the claim passively indicates that a function is performed or a structure is used without requiring that the function or structure is a limitation on the claim itself. The clause may be given some weight to the extent it provides "meaning and purpose” to the claimed invention but not when “it simply expresses the intended result” of the invention. In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Further, during prosecution, claim language that may or may not be limiting should be considered non-limiting under the standard of the broadest reasonable interpretation. See M.P.E.P. 904.01(a); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 44 USPQ2d 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958); M.P.E.P 2144.04(III); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A claimed improvement by use of a computer requires a nexus to a particularly claimed algorithm and may not come “solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 13-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12175015 Damveld (“Damveld”) in view of US 20220019790 to Ravi (“Ravi”).
Regarding Claim 1: “A processing device comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the processing device to (“one or more processors, memory and one or more modules, programs or sets of instructions stored in the memory for performing multiple functions” Damveld, Column 6, lines 46-49.)
acquire a moving image that includes frames (“For example, content 20 may be a sequence of images that may include visual and/or audio cues as the 10 visual characteristic 30 presented to the user (e.g., 360-degree video [moving image] on a head mounted device (HMD)).” Damveld, Column 6, lines 8-11.)
in each of which a first image for display to a right eye of a user, and a second image for display to a left eye of the user, and (“the display is presented to the user as a first projection for a first eye of the user and a second projection for a second eye of the user.” Damveld, Column 2, lines 36-38. Also note an example where “the device 10 includes a display for each eye of the user” Damveld, Column 20, lines 15-16.)
determine a likelihood of the user experiencing a particular symptom due to viewing the moving image; and (“In some circumstances, users may experience motion sickness during such experiences. … Based on the obtained physiological data [information of the user], the techniques described herein can determine a user's vestibular cues during the experience (e.g., an XR experience [characteristic of the video]) by tracking the user's gaze characteristic(s) and other interactions (e.g., user movements in the physical environment, or moving within the XR environment such as moving a virtual avatar with a controller). Based on the vestibular cues, the techniques can adjust content (e.g., reduce contrast or spatial frequency) and/or add additional content (e.g., noise, structured patterns, etc.) to reduce motion sickness.” Damveld, Column 1, lines 28-30, and Column 2, lines 1-19. Thus, Damveld indicates that presence of particular user data, image content, and image characteristics indicates a likelihood that a user will experience motion sickness that triggers adjustment to the content to reduce the motion sickness.)
control to display a first screen for editing the moving image, (“In some implementations, the device 10 has a graphical user interface (GUI), … In some implementations, the functions include image editing, …” Damveld, Column 6, lines 46.)
wherein in the first screen, a section in the moving image, during which the particular symptom is likely to be experienced, is notified to an editing user.” (First note that this element does not further limit the claimed apparatus to a particular structure. Further, prior art teaches “FIGS. 4A, 4B, and 4C are example screenshots [first screens] 400A, 400B, and 400C, respectively, that illustrate adjusting image content in accordance with some implementations. … area 404a, area 404b, and area 404c, represent an extrafoveal view of a user that is adjusted with reduced contrast to reduce motion sickness as the user is moving with respect to the virtual environment,” where such screens can be viewed by a human or a computer user who can edit the video. Damveld, Column 10, lines 50-62. Also see “method 300 to adjust image content to reduce motion sickness” in Damveld, Column 8, lines 18-35.)
Damveld indicates that likelihood of motion sickness is implied by the presence of particular display circumstances based on image content, image characteristics, and user data.
Ravi explicitly teaches detecting abnormal patterns in stereoscopic video while viewing particular content and while viewer performs particular motions: “the viewer sometimes feels a motion sickness-like symptom. … the image processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment detects an abnormal pattern in which the state of the eyes of the viewer changes abnormally” which determines that there is a likelihood of the user experiencing motion like symptoms. See Ravi, Paragraph 35.
Where necessary, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Damveld to determine if a user is likely to experience motion sickness based on video content and characteristics and user data, as taught in Ravi, in order “to reduce motion sickness.” Ravi, Column 2, lines 1-11.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 2: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program when executed by the processor causes the processing device to determine the likelihood of the user experiencing the particular symptom due to viewing the moving image, … in accordance with a result of comparing criteria and the characteristics of the moving image, and the criteria are in accordance with information of contents of the moving image and information of the user.” (“In some circumstances, users may experience motion sickness during such experiences. … Based on the obtained physiological data [information of the user], the techniques described herein can determine a user's vestibular cues during the experience (e.g., an XR experience [characteristic of the video]) by tracking the user's gaze characteristic(s) and other interactions (e.g., user movements in the physical environment, or moving within the XR environment such as moving a virtual avatar with a controller). Based on the vestibular cues, the techniques can adjust content (e.g., reduce contrast or spatial frequency) and/or add additional content (e.g., noise, structured patterns, etc.) to reduce motion sickness.” Damveld, Column 1, lines 28-30, and Column 2, lines 1-19. Thus Damveld indicates that presence of particular user data, image content, and image characteristics indicates a likelihood that a user will experience motion sickness that triggers adjustment to the content to reduce the motion sickness. See additional examples and statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 3: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the likelihood of the user experiencing a particular symptom is determined on a basis of information of the user, and (“In some circumstances, users may experience motion sickness during such experiences. … Based on the obtained physiological data [information of the user], the techniques described herein can determine a user's vestibular cues during the experience (e.g., an XR experience [characteristic of the video]) by tracking the user's gaze characteristic(s) and other interactions (e.g., user movements in the physical environment, or moving within the XR environment such as moving a virtual avatar with a controller). Based on the vestibular cues, the techniques can adjust content (e.g., reduce contrast or spatial frequency) and/or add additional content (e.g., noise, structured patterns, etc.) to reduce motion sickness.” Damveld, Column 1, lines 28-30, and Column 2, lines 1-19. Thus, Damveld indicates that presence of particular user data, image content, and image characteristics indicates a likelihood that a user will experience motion sickness that triggers adjustment to the content to reduce the motion sickness.)
the information of the user is information based on at least one of age of the user and a state of stereoscopic abilities of the user.” (For example stereoscopic abilities of the user can be embodied in “the user's gaze characteristic(s) and other interactions (e.g., user movements in the physical environment, or moving within the XR environment such as moving a virtual avatar with a controller).” Damveld, Column 2, lines 5-8. Note that additional prior art embodiments are disclosed in AAPA, Specification Paragraphs 2-4.)
Regarding Claim 4: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the likelihood of the user experiencing a particular symptom is determined on a basis of information of contents of the moving image, and (“In some circumstances, users may experience motion sickness during such experiences. … Based on the obtained physiological data [information of the user], the techniques described herein can determine a user's vestibular cues during the experience (e.g., an XR experience [characteristic of the video]) by tracking the user's gaze characteristic(s) and other interactions (e.g., user movements in the physical environment, or moving within the XR environment such as moving a virtual avatar with a controller). Based on the vestibular cues, the techniques can adjust content (e.g., reduce contrast or spatial frequency) and/or add additional content (e.g., noise, structured patterns, etc.) to reduce motion sickness.” Damveld, Column 1, lines 28-30, and Column 2, lines 1-19. Thus, Damveld indicates that presence of particular user data, image content, and image characteristics indicates a likelihood that a user will experience motion sickness that triggers adjustment to the content to reduce the motion sickness.)
the information of contents of the moving image is information relating to a situation at the time of shooting the moving image.” (For example, information of contents at the time of shooting can be “the speed of movement of the viewpoint position (viewpoint camera) to be made a reference when the state in the virtual space is to be drawn may be controlled. In particular, it is possible to cause a symptom of sickness to be less likely to occur by lowering the speed of movement of the viewpoint camera.” Ravi, Paragraph 42. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 7: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program when executed by the processor further causes the processing device to, in a case where it is determined that the user will likely experience the particular symptom, … execute image processing on the moving image to reduce the likelihood that the user will experience the particular symptom.” (For example, “the image processing apparatus 10 according to the present embodiment detects an abnormal pattern in which the state of the eyes of the viewer changes abnormally and performs such display control as reduces the symptom of sickness according to detection of such an abnormal pattern as just described.” Ravi, Paragraph 35. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Regarding Claim 13: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the likelihood of the user experiencing a particular symptom is determined on a basis of characteristics of the moving image, and (“In some circumstances, users may experience motion sickness during such experiences. … Based on the obtained physiological data [information of the user], the techniques described herein can determine a user's vestibular cues during the experience (e.g., an XR experience [characteristic of the video]) by tracking the user's gaze characteristic(s) and other interactions (e.g., user movements in the physical environment, or moving within the XR environment such as moving a virtual avatar with a controller). Based on the vestibular cues, the techniques can adjust content (e.g., reduce contrast or spatial frequency) and/or add additional content (e.g., noise, structured patterns, etc.) to reduce motion sickness.” Damveld, Column 1, lines 28-30, and Column 2, lines 1-19. Thus, Damveld indicates that presence of particular user data, image content, and image characteristics indicates a likelihood that a user will experience motion sickness that triggers adjustment to the content to reduce the motion sickness.)
the characteristics of the moving image include first characteristics indicating a difference between the first image and the second image, and (For example, the characteristic may be a difference in the projection or disparity of the images: “the display is presented to the user as a first projection for a first eye of the user and a second projection for a second eye of the user.” Damveld, Column 2, lines 36-38.)
second characteristics indicating a measure of movement of an image-capturing device that performed image-capturing of the moving image.” (For example “An experience may involve avatar motion ( camera motion)” Damveld, Column 5, line 59.)
Regarding Claim 14: “The processing device according to claim 13 , wherein the first characteristics include at least one of shift in size, shift in position, shift in rotation, difference in brightness, difference in color, difference in contrast ratio, and disparity, between the first image and the second image.” (For example, the characteristic may be a difference in the projection and thus a shift in position and disparity between the eye images: “the display is presented to the user as a first projection for a first eye of the user and a second projection for a second eye of the user.” Damveld, Column 2, lines 36-38.)
Regarding Claim 16: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the particular symptom is at least one of fatigue and sickness.” (“In some circumstances, users may experience motion sickness during such experiences. … the techniques can adjust content (e.g., reduce contrast or spatial frequency) and/or add additional content (e.g., noise, structured patterns, etc.) to reduce motion sickness.” Damveld, Column 1, lines 28-30, and Column 2, lines 1-19.)
Claim 17: “A processing method” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, because the apparatus of Claim 1 implements the steps of Claim 17.
Claim 18: “A non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program, wherein the program causes a computer to execute:” is rejected for reasons stated for Claim 1, and because prior art teaches: “one or more processors, memory and one or more modules, programs or sets of instructions stored in the memory for performing multiple functions” Damveld, Column 6, lines 46-49.)
Regarding Claim 19: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program when executed by the processor further causes the processing device to … generate moving image contents by removing the section during which the particular symptom is likely to be experienced.” (“On the other hand, if a notification of end of the blink is not received, then the drawing condition determination section 32 maintains the state in which the drawing process of the frame image is suspended, the processing for the frame ends.” Ravi, Paragraphs 45, 27-28. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.)
Claims 5-6, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12175015 Damveld (“Damveld”) in view of US 20220019790 to Ravi (“Ravi”) and in view of US 20190025580 to Nagano (“Nagano”).
Regarding Claim 5: “The processing device according to claim 4, wherein the information of contents of the moving image includes information of whether or not the moving image is shot by an image-capturing device placed in a vehicle.” (For example, “the speed of movement of the viewpoint position (viewpoint camera) to be made a reference when the state in the virtual space is to be drawn may be controlled.” Ravi, Paragraph 42. See statement of motivation in Claim 1.
Damveld and Ravi do not teach that the “the moving image is shot by an image-capturing device placed in a vehicle.”
Nagano teaches the above feature in the context of adjusting image display for a better user experience: “a camera (inside the vehicle) 115, a camera (outside the vehicle) 116” Nagano, Paragraph 74.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Damveld and Ravi to shoot a video using “image-capturing device placed in a vehicle” as taught in Nagano, in order to acquire image information from inside the vehicle. Nagano, Paragraph 74.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 6: “The processing device according to claim 4, wherein the information of contents of the moving image includes information of whether or not the moving image is shot in a state of camera shake occurring.” (“since a vehicle may vibrate or incline in accordance with a running condition, a case in which visibility of a display video image may cause a problem or a case in which suitable contents cannot be displayed may be generated, in some cases. … an acceleration sensor 110, a gyro sensor 111, … a camera (inside the vehicle) 115, a camera (outside the vehicle) 116 … appropriately use the vehicle information 4 which can be acquired by a device included,” thus the contents of the moving image may contain contents and use information that was shot in a state of a camera shake occurring. See Nagano, Paragraphs 3, 74. See statement of motivation in Claim 6.)
Regarding Claim 15: “The processing device according to claim 13, wherein,
in a case where the moving image is contents shot by an image-capturing device placed in a vehicle, (See reasons for rejection in Claim 5.)
the second characteristics are a yaw angular velocity and a pitch angular velocity of the image-capturing device, and (“where "r" indicates yaw velocity, and "u" indicates surge velocity … ” Danveld, Column 15, lines 3-4, 39. “The acceleration sensor 110 and the gyro sensor 111 acquire the acceleration gyro information including acceleration and angle speed as information of posture and behavior of the vehicle 2,” and thus cameras mounted on the vehicle “The camera (inside the vehicle) 115 and the camera (outside the vehicle) 116.” Nagano, Paragraphs 77-78.)
in a case where the moving image is contents shot in a state of camera shake occurring, (See reasons for rejection in Claim 6.)
the second characteristics are magnitude of the camera shake.” (“it is possible to grasp the vibration amount (an amount of an up-and-down motion in a short cycle in the vehicle 2) based on the acceleration gyro information, the camera video image information outside the vehicle, and the like.” Nagano, Paragraph 107. See statement of motivation in Claim 5.)
Claims 9-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 12175015 Damveld (“Damveld”) in view of US 20220019790 to Ravi (“Ravi”) and in view of US 20190172264 to Oh (“Oh”).
Regarding Claim 9: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program when executed by the processor causes the processing device to
display the first image and the second image on a display, and (“the display is presented to the user as a first projection for a first eye of the user and a second projection for a second eye of the user.” Damveld, Column 2, lines 36-38. Also note an example where “the device 10 includes a display for each eye of the user” Damveld, Column 20, lines 15-16.)
also display the characteristics of the moving image.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, displayed characteristics can be “difference in brightness, difference in color, difference in contrast ratio, disparity, and so forth …” Specification, Paragraph 41. Prior art teaches the example of displaying images having reduced contrast in Column 2, line 9. Also note embodiments of using charts and graphs where “For example, the output unit may display the input image/signal, the feature point, the motion sickness level, etc. using graphs, numerical values, and images.” Oh, Paragraph 79. See statement of motivation in Claim 10.)
Regarding Claim 10: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program when executed by the processor causes the processing device to
display the first image and the second image on a display, and (“the display is presented to the user as a first projection for a first eye of the user and a second projection for a second eye of the user.” Damveld, Column 2, lines 36-38. Also note an example where “the device 10 includes a display for each eye of the user” Damveld, Column 20, lines 15-16.)
also [display] a graph indicating time sequence change of the characteristics of the moving image.” (“FIG. 5 is a graph depicting drawing time of a frame image and indicates a state of drawing control of a frame image within a time zone within which the ocular potential diagram of FIG. 4 is acquired.” Ravi, Paragraph 30.)
Damveld and Ravi do not explicitly teach to “display a graph,” however note that Ravi Fig. 5 is a graph rendered for display, which indicates that it was known in the art.
Further, Oh teaches that graphs with available image data can be displayed along with images in the context of tracking user motion sickness: ““For example, the output unit may display the input image/signal, the feature point, the motion sickness level, etc. using graphs, numerical values, and images.” Oh, Paragraph 79 and Figs. 4-8.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supplement the teachings of Damveld and Ravi to display a graph of the data as taught in Oh, in order to present the information using a graphic user interface. Oh, Paragraph 79.
Finally, in reviewing the present application, there does not seem to be objective evidence that the claim limitations are particularly directed to: addressing a particular problem which was recognized but unsolved in the art, producing unexpected results at the level of the ordinary skill in the art, or any other objective indicators of non-obviousness.
Regarding Claim 12: “The processing device according to claim 1, wherein the program when executed by the processor causes the processing device to, in a case where it is determined that the user will likely experience the particular symptom,
and where a graph indicating time sequence change of the characteristics of the moving image is displayed, (See rejection reasons in Claim 10.)
enhance display of a position of the graph corresponding to the frame regarding which the user will likely experience the particular symptom.” (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and ordinary skill in the art, position of the graph corresponding to the frame describes a frame at a particular time. Prior art teaches: “if a notification that the viewer has begun to close the eyes by blinking is received from the eye information acquisition section 31, then the drawing condition determination section 32 suspends periodical drawing instruction of a frame image. … 32 resumes drawing instruction of a frame image …” which enhance the display of the image relative to the detected situation. Ravi, Paragraph 27 and similarly in Damveld, Column 5, lines 56-57. Also note embodiment of an enhancement as a change in contrast in Damveld, Column 2, lines 15-21, and an embodiment of an enhancement as alteration of a graph based on the time of the frame displayed on the screen in Oh, Paragraph 83. See statements of motivation in Claims 1, 10.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7940. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thu. 9am - 8pm.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571)272-7383. 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.
/MIKHAIL ITSKOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights