DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 9/22/2023.
Claims 1-13, 15, 16, and 19-23 have been submitted for examination.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 3, 7, 8, 10-12, 15, 16, 19, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Paperny et al. (US 7,559,034), hereinafter Paperny.
As per claim 1, Paperny teaches the following:
an image display method, comprising:
displaying an initial scene image in a target interactive interface. See Fig. 9a, 900a;
displaying a target area on the initial scene image in response to a first trigger operation, an area range of the target area being expanded with an increase of a display duration of the target area. As Paperny teaches in column 23, lines 1-36, upon a user selecting a hyperlink (Fig. 9a, 901a), an image is displayed proximate the selection (Fig. 9b, 902b), wherein the image is interpreted as encompassing Applicant’s “target area”. Paperny further teaches that the image is gradually zoomed in and rotated (Figs. 9b-9g) which is interpreted as being “expanded with an increase of a display duration”; and
displaying a target scene image in the target area, a display size of the target scene image being enlarged with expansion of the area range of the target area. As Paperny teaches in column 23, lines 1-36, the image is gradually zoomed (enlarged) and rotated, where the area occupied by the image is interpreted as encompassing the “target area”.
Regarding claim 3, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
a transparency of the target scene image is decreased with the expansion of the area range of the target area; and/or an image angle of the target scene image is rotated with the expansion of the area range of the target area. As Paperny teaches in column 23, lines 1-36, and corresponding Figs. 9b-9g, the image is rotated as it is enlarged.
Regarding claim 7, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
the target area further comprises an area boundary pattern having a dynamic effect. As Paperny shows in Figs. 13b-13f, a dynamic boundary of distorting initial content may be applied.
Regarding claim 8, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
the target area is completely covered by the target scene image. As Paperny shows in Fig. 9b, 902b, the entirety of the image display is interpreted as being the target area.
Regarding claim 10, Paperny teaches the method of claim 8 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
the displaying of the target scene image in the target area comprises: displaying a target display area of the target scene image in the target area, the target display area being determined according to the area range of the target area. As Paperny shows in Fig. 9b, 902b, the entirety of the image display is interpreted as being the target area. Therefore, the image itself, at its various levels of enlargement/rotation, would be displayed according to an area range of the target area.
Regarding claim 11, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
the target scene image comprises any one of a static image or a dynamic image. As Paperny teaches in column 23, lines 1-36, and corresponding Figs. 9b-9g, the image is rotated as it is enlarged, thus creating a dynamic image.
Regarding claim 12, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
before displaying the target scene image in the target area, in a case where the target scene image is a two-dimensional image, performing three-dimensional reconstruction on the target scene image to obtain a three-dimensional target scene image; wherein the displaying of the target scene image in the target area comprises displaying the three-dimensional target scene image in the target area. As Paperny teaches in column 16, lines 36-40, content to be overlaid may be two or three-dimensional. Paperny shows in Figs. 8b-8e that a static two dimensional image may be selected or in Figs. 9b-9e that a three dimensional image may be selected. Therefore, as Paperny teaches of taking an original two dimensional image and then possibly rotating it, this is interpreted as “reconstructing” the image in a third dimension.
As per claim 15, Paperny teaches the following:
an image display device, comprising: a memory configured to store executable instructions; and a processor (see claim 73 of Paperny).
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
As per claim 16, Paperny teaches the following:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having a computer program stored thereon (see claim 79 of Paperny).
The remaining limitations of claim 16 are substantially similar to those of claim 1 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 19, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. Paperny further teaches the following:
the initial scene image comprises a real-time visual scene image; and/or the target scene image comprises a local image selected by a user. As Paperny shows in Fig. 9a, an image to display is selected by the user via hyperlink 901a.
Regarding claim 21, Paperny teaches the device of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 21 are substantially similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 23, Paperny teaches the medium of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 23 are substantially similar to those of claim 3 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
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) 2, 4-6, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paperny as applied to claims 1, 15, and 16, in view of Reilly (US 2021/0366174).
Regarding claim 2, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Paperny does not explicitly teach of the target area being expanded to completely cover the interface. Reilly teaches the following:
after the target scene image is displayed in the target area, stopping display of the initial scene image in the target interactive interface in a case where the area range of the target area is expanded to completely cover the target interactive interface. As Reilly shows in Fig. 9, and corresponding paragraph [0090], a selected target area 60 is expanded to encompass an entirety of a display 114.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the image enlargement of Paperny with the full screen encompassing image of Reilly. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because Paperny shows a desire to have target content overlay an original content in Fig. 7 and the full screen image enlargement of Reilly would benefit a user of Paperny in increasing screen real estate of target content to provide maximum information to the user.
Regarding claim 4, Paperny teaches the method of claim 1 as described above. However, Paperny does not explicitly teach of the target interface comprising a shooting interface and the first trigger being a hand gesture. Reilly teaches the following:
the target interactive interface comprises a shooting preview interface, and the first trigger operation comprises a first user hand gesture displayed in the shooting preview interface; and/or the initial scene image comprises a real-time visual scene image; and/or the target scene image comprises a local image selected by a user. As Reilly teaches in the abstract, an interface may provide a live VR broadcast (real-time visual scene) and in paragraph [0090], the user input may be that of a user drawing a circular outline (hand gesture).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the interface and input of Paperny with the live image and input drawing of Reilly. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Reilly teaches in paragraph [0005] and [0006], such live broadcasts benefit users being at different locations and the gesture inputs benefit users in increased interaction and engagement.
Regarding claim 5, Paperny teaches the method of claim 4 as described above. However, as described above, Paperny does not explicitly teach of t the first trigger being a hand gesture. Reilly teaches the following:
the first user hand gesture is configured to draw a target trajectory; and the method further comprises: determining a display parameter of the target area according to a trajectory parameter of the target trajectory before displaying the target area on the initial scene image; wherein the displaying of the target area on the initial scene image comprises: displaying the target area on the initial scene image according to the display parameter of the target area. As Reilly teaches in paragraph [0090], and corresponding Fig. 9, the user may draw a circular outline (display parameter) around a specific part of an image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the interface and input of Paperny with the live image and input drawing of Reilly. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Reilly teaches in paragraph [0005] and [0006], such live broadcasts benefit users being at different locations and the gesture inputs benefit users in increased interaction and engagement.
Regarding claim 6, Paperny teaches the method of claim 5 as described above. However, as described above, Paperny does not explicitly teach of t the first trigger being a hand gesture. Reilly teaches the following:
the display parameter of the target area comprises at least one of a shape, a display position, or a display size of the target area. As Reilly teaches in paragraph [0090], and corresponding Fig. 9, the user may draw a circular outline (shape and position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the interface and input of Paperny with the live image and input drawing of Reilly. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because as Reilly teaches in paragraph [0005] and [0006], such live broadcasts benefit users being at different locations and the gesture inputs benefit users in increased interaction and engagement.
Regarding claim 20, Paperny teaches the device of claim 15 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 20 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Regarding claim 22, Paperny teaches the medium of claim 16 as described above. The remaining limitations of claim 22 are substantially similar to those of claim 2 and are rejected using the same reasoning.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paperny as applied to claims 1 and 8, in view of Gilra et al. (US 8,358,876), hereinafter Gilra.
Regarding claim 9, Paperny teaches the method of claim 8 as described above. However, Paperny does not explicitly teach of determining a bounding area. Gilra teaches the following:
an image size of the target scene image is determined according to a rectangular size of a minimum bounding rectangle of the target area. As Gilra teaches in the abstract, a selection (such as the selected object in Paperny) may be made by defining an approximate bounding box of the object.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention to have modified the selectionof Paperny with the bounding boxes of Gilra. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to have made such modification because bounding boxes benefit users in providing the user with a visual confirmation of a selection, as well as relay to the user an area occupied by an object of irregular shape.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
-Sato et al. (US 2015/0339801), see Fig. 3.
-Werner (US 2012/0113015), drawing shapes to define new objects, see Fig. 2.
-Anzures et al. (US 10761,691), animated page transitions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY A DISTEFANO whose telephone number is (571)270-1644. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9 am - 5 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, William Bashore can be reached at 5712424088. 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.
/GREGORY A. DISTEFANO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2174
/WILLIAM L BASHORE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2174