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 Amendment
The amendment filed on September 24, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (06/25/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 15 are currently pending.
Claims 15 is cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Objection to Drawings
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 24, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Sanders does not disclose or suggest “…wherein the border region is the penumbra (see Remarks p. 9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The specification of the instant application discloses “The width of the penumbra or border around the subject where the chroma colourfield is to be displayed may be selected depending on the expected rate of movement of the subject and the processing capabilities of the chromakey processor.” (¶68). Thus, it is interpreted that the penumbra is an area "determined" around the subject where the chroma color field is to be displayed, and not an area which is recognized or identified within the input image feed by image processing, as a partially shaded region around the shadow of the subject, as interpreted by Applicant. Additionally, in the Oxford English Dictionary, referred to by Applicant (see Remarks p.8), penumbra is also defined as “a peripheral region of uncertain extent” (https://www.oed.com/dictionary/penumbra_n?tab=meaning_and_use#31132121). Based on the above context, penumbra is interpreted as a label defining the area surrounding a subject, and does not provide any technical features as currently claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 – 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 and 8 recites the limitation "the penumbra" in the last limitation. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 5 and 7 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sanders (US 2015/0348326).
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses a screen controller for forming an output image feed for display by a screen, the screen controller comprising one or more processors and memory storing program code executable by the processor (fig. 11) to cause the processor to: receive an input image feed (¶42: virtual reality environment 300); receive an indication of a first region of the screen overlain by a subject (¶42, 45: computer system can calculate a projection of the subject 302 on the display 30); determine a border region extending beyond the first region (fig. 4); and form the output image feed so as to comprise the input image feed overlain in the border region by a field of a predetermined colour, wherein the border region is the penumbra of the subjection (¶43: chroma-key background can be overlain on top of selected portions of the 3D virtual scene).
Regarding claim 2, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sanders also teaches wherein the input image feed is a video feed and the output image feed is a video feed (¶40-41: video sequences).
Regarding claim 3, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sanders also teaches wherein the program code is such as to cause the processor to form the output image feed so as to comprise the input image feed overlain in the border region and the first region by a field of the predetermined colour (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sanders also teaches wherein the predetermined colour is a chromakey colour (¶42).
Regarding claim 5, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sanders also teaches wherein the program code is such as to cause the processor to determine the location of the first region in dependence on a received point of view from which the screen is overlain in the first region by the subject (¶45).
Regarding claim 7, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 1. Sanders also teaches wherein the first region is the entire region of the screen overlain by the subject (fig. 3).
Claim 8 is rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Sanders. Sanders also teaches the added limitations of providing a video camera (108) and a screen (102) (fig. 1); determining the location of the video camera relative to the screen (¶23, 45).
Regarding claim 9, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 8. Sanders also teaches wherein the screen is an LED wall (fig. 1-3; ¶33).
Regarding claim 10, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 8. Sanders also teaches further comprising: capturing by the camera a video of the subject against the screen; and post-processing the captured video to form an output video by replacing regions of the predetermined colour in the captured video by portions of the input video feed (¶70-71).
Regarding claim 11, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 10. Sanders also teaches wherein the method comprises post-processing the captured video to form an output video by replacing regions of the predetermined colour in the captured video by portions of the input video feed that were overlain in the border region by the field of the predetermined colour (¶70-71).
Regarding claim 12, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 8. Sanders also teaches comprising forming the output image feed so as to comprise the input image feed overlain in the border region and the first region by a field of the predetermined colour (fig. 3).
Regarding claim 13, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 8. Sanders also teaches comprising determining the first region of the screen by projecting an infra-red beam from the camera towards the screen and detecting that part of the screen shaded from the infra-red beam by the subject (¶46).
Regarding claim 14, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 8. Sanders also teaches comprising estimating the location of the camera by reference to reference markers in the environment of the camera (¶45, 46, 55, 64).
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) 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders in view of Buffin (US 2018/0167596).
Regarding claim 6, Sanders discloses the limitations of claim 5. Sanders fails to explicitly disclose wherein the program code is such as to cause the processor to determine the border region so as to subtend an angle of 30 degrees or less from the received point of view.
In a similar field of endeavor, Buffin teaches determining an area behind the subject (corresponding to the border region) wherein the angular width is small enough for lighting and large enough for spontaneous subject movements and isolation (¶88). In light of the teaching of Buffin, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to use Buffin’s teaching in Sander’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in an easier image composition. Sanders-Buffin do not explicitly disclose subtending an angle of 30 degrees or less. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to choose an angle having an optimal range of 30 degrees or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm EST.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639