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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/30/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1, 2 and 4-12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Publication No. 2011/0273473) in view of Shibata et al. (“Shibata”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0255233) and McLean (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0075630).
In regards to claim 1, a mobile terminal system is shown by Kim wherein a first sensor in the form of an acceleration sensor or gyro sensor as seen in ¶0042 and 0044, then ¶0036 then describes the system including two or more cameras, with ¶0126-0127 describing a user input which enters the initial position information and initial direction information of the mobile terminal and compares it with sensing data provided by the first sensor to present the current position and direction information, thus a position of each of the plurality of cameras is based on an operation by a user and an output of the first sensor, with ¶0126-0129 then describing that the cameras may be controlled, monitored or their information processed by the controller of the system and respond to the position and direction information of the cameras. Kim, however, only teaches the cameras which are on the mobile terminal itself, and doesn’t include cameras which are provided independently of the system. In a similar endeavor Shibata teaches a mobile device [in the form of a flying object] which may have a GPS unit to determine its own location and position, its own cameras, and more importantly the overall system includes a camera 10 which is independent of the mobile device as seen in FIG. 15 and ¶0168-0173, and from the GPS information the system may then determine the relative position of the mobile device with that of the independent camera such that the independent camera may calculate proper positioning towards the mobile device, with the shooting position of the independent camera being at origin O as described in ¶0151 with reference to FIG. 13. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Shibata into Kim as it allows for not only knowledge of positioning and directional information of the cameras on the mobile device itself, but also in relation to independent cameras such that the mobile device may be imaged by these independent cameras through the use of relational positioning information, and associated controls may be made as well.
Therefore together Kim and Shibata teach an information processing apparatus comprising:
a first sensor (See ¶0042 and 0044 of Kim wherein the sensor may be taught as an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor, additionally Shibata teaches the use of a GPS sensor as seen in ¶0171); and
at least one processor configured to function as the following units (See ¶0147 of Kim);
a calculation unit configured to calculate information indicating an installation position of each of a plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on an operation by a user and an output of the first sensor (See ¶0036 of Kim wherein the system may include two or more cameras, additionally ¶0126-0127 of Kim describes a user-entered initial position information and initial direction information of the system, this is taken in view of ¶0168-0173 of Shibata wherein relative position information between the mobile unit and independent cameras may also be calculated); and
a control unit configured to control the plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on the installation position (See ¶0126-0129 of Kim wherein the cameras may be controlled, monitored or their information processed by the controller of the system, and responds to the position and direction information of the cameras, also see ¶0168-0173 in view of FIG. 15 of Shibata), wherein the first sensor includes at least one of a gyro sensor, an acceleration sensor, an azimuth sensor, and a GPS sensor (See ¶0042 and 0044 of Kim; also see ¶0171 of Shibata), and
wherein the plurality of image capturing apparatuses is provided independently of the information processing apparatus (See ¶0168-0173 in view of FIG. 15 and 13 of Shibata wherein cameras may include those which are provided independently from the system itself, wherein one of ordinary skill in the art understands that additional independent cameras would merely be a duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Shibata into Kim because it allows for calculation of relative positional information between independent cameras and the mobile units themselves as seen in at least ¶0168-0173 in view of FIG. 15, thus providing more precise information.
Kim additionally fails to teach wherein the calculation unit calculates the information indicating the installation position at first timing, based on the output of the first sensor at the first timing, which is timing when the operation by the user is received.
That is, ¶0126-0127 of Kim describes that the system maintains displacement changes in the position and direction of the camera, and that this is done in reference to the initial position information and initial direction information of the device by the user, and then compares these initial parameters to the updated values provided by the [gyro] sensor of the system. Kim, however, fails to specify that the initial parameter setup is done at a specific timing, from which current sensor output may be compared to and calculated, or that the initialization/set up was associated with a certain time designated by the user. It is obvious that the initial setup by Kim would indeed be done at a first timing, as such a setup would require a time at which it has be set up [i.e., a setup cannot be done in a void of time], and it is clear that the comparisons done by Kim are those compared at the time at which the initial parameters were set up.
However, for the purposes of compact prosecution, an additional reference will be provided.
In a similar endeavor McLean teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates the information indicating the installation position at first timing, based on the output of the first sensor at the first timing, which is timing when the operation by the user is received (See ¶0136 wherein coordinate information of the mobile device which is established by an internal GPS system is compared to preset conditions established by the user, such as at the time of an application set up or initialization routine, this is taken in view of Kim’s teachings in ¶0126-0127 wherein the user has entered initial positional and initial directional information by which the system may then compare to with that of sensor data such as a gyro sensor).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of McLean into Kim because it allows for very specifically showing that data which is currently sensed as described in ¶0136 is compared to that which was set by a user at the time of the initial set up or initialization.
In regards to claim 2, Kim teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information indicating the installation position is information indicating a relative position of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (See ¶0126-0129 wherein it is indeed understood that the direction information and initial information are relative).
In regards to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Kim in view of Shibata and McLean.
In regards to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 1 by Kim in view of Shibata and McLean wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is taught as seen in ¶0147.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Publication No. 2011/0273473) in view of Shibata et al. (“Shibata”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0255233) and McLean (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0075630), in further view of Nakada et al. (“Nakada”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2012/0242560).
In regards to claim 4, Kim fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates installation angles of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on an output result of the first sensor.
In a similar endeavor Nakada teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates installation angles of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on an output result of the first sensor (See ¶0152).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Nakada into Kim because it allows for the calculation of information such as a change amount of angle and direction per unit of time, i.e. angular velocity, through the use of a gyro sensor as described in ¶0152, thus providing for precise measurements as required by the system.
In regards to claim 5, Kim teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the first sensor is at least one of an acceleration sensor and an azimuth sensor (See ¶0042-0043).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Publication No. 2011/0273473) in view of Shibata et al. (“Shibata”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0255233) and McLean (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0075630), in further view of Hwang (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0204724).
In regards to claim 6, Kim fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates installation angles of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on an output result of a second sensor included in each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses.
In a similar endeavor Hwang teaches wherein the calculation unit calculates installation angles of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses based on an output result of a second sensor included in each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses (See ¶0051).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Hwang into Kim because it allows for the calculation, storage and transmittance of direction and angle information of each imaging device as described in at least ¶0051.
In regards to claim 7, Kim fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the second sensor is at least one of an acceleration sensor and an azimuth sensor, and the first sensor is a different sensor from the second sensor.
In a similar endeavor Hwang teaches wherein the second sensor is at least one of an acceleration sensor and an azimuth sensor (See ¶0051), and the first sensor is a different sensor from the second sensor (See ¶0051, this is taken in view of ¶0042 and 0044 of Kim).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Hwang into Kim because it allows for the calculation, storage and transmittance of direction and angle information of each imaging device as described in at least ¶0051.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Publication No. 2011/0273473) in view of Shibata et al. (“Shibata”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0255233) and McLean (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0075630), in further view of Sakayori (U.S. PG Publication No. 2012/0319968).
In regards to claim 8, Kim fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit displays information indicating an image capturing range of each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses on a display.
In a similar endeavor Sakayori teaches wherein the control unit displays information indicating an image capturing range of each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses on a display (See ¶0309, 0349 and 0353 wherein the control unit may control the display to display imaging range of each of the plurality of imaging units).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Sakayori into Kim because it allows for display of imaging range information as described in ¶0349 and 0285 thus giving the user ability to identify such information.
In regards to claim 9, Kim fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, further comprising the display.
In a similar endeavor Sakayori teaches further comprising the display (See ¶0031-0033).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Sakayori into Kim because it allows for display of imaging range information as described in ¶0349 and 0285 thus giving the user ability to identify such information.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (U.S. PG Publication No. 2011/0273473) in view of Shibata et al. (“Shibata”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2018/0255233) and McLean (U.S. PG Publication No. 2009/0075630), in further view of Sakayori (U.S. PG Publication No. 2012/0319968) and Mukasa (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0027281).
In regards to claim 10, Kim fails to teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein at least one of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses is capable of rotating a casing including an image capturing lens and an image sensor in at least one or more axial directions, and wherein the control unit displays information indicating an image capturing range to be enabled by rotating the casing on the display.
In a similar endeavor Sakayori and Mukasa together teach wherein at least one of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses is capable of rotating a casing (See ¶0047 and 0064 of Mukasa) including an image capturing lens and an image sensor in at least one or more axial directions (See ¶0043 of Mukasa with regards to the image sensor, also see ¶0055 of Sakayori with regards to a lens) and wherein the control unit displays information indicating an image capturing range to be enabled by rotating the casing on the display (See ¶0309, 0349 and 0353 of Sakayori wherein the control unit may control the display to display imaging range of each of the plurality of imaging units, this is taken in view of 0064 of Mukasa).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Sakayori and Mukasa into Kim because it allows for display of imaging range information as described in ¶0349 and 0285 thus giving the user ability to identify such information.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483