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 .
Application Status
This office action is responsive to the amendments (Dated: 08/26/2026), pertaining to Application No.:18/584,239, filed on 02/22/2024 (Priority Date: 03/02/2023).
Claims 1-19 are pending and presented for examination.
This action has been made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1-19 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.
Independent claims 1, 13, 14 and 15 recites “where it intersects the irradiation range.” However, it is unclear what exactly “it” represents. Therefore, this claim is rendered as indefinite. The examiner suggests amending the claims to elaborate on what exactly “it” is suppose to represent.
The dependent claims are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 11: “With this configuration, the virtual-space image is selectively adjusted to account for illumination from real-space light sources, resulting in a more natural and visually consistent AR image, particularly for in-camera VFX applications. Likewise, the displayed image, including VR-generated background portions influenced by real-world light sources, appears more natural to the viewer. These features are neither taught nor suggested by the cited prior art.” The examiner is not persuaded. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., space image is selectively adjusted to account for illumination from real-space light sources, resulting in a more natural and visually consistent AR image,) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 11: “In particular, Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge, either alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest, the features of determining a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus where it intersects the irradiation range of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space; and generating, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence exerted by light from the light source existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space, as recited in Applicant's amended claims 1 and 13-15.” The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner maintains the combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Kim’s teachings of “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “determines a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus” in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge. Kim goes on to disclose “of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space” in Paragraphs 0022-0023 of Kim. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “and generates, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space” and “exerted by light from the light source” in Kim’s Paragraphs 0022-0023. Tomite discloses “an influence” in Paragraphs 0017; 0052. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space in Paragraphs 0017; 0052 of Tomite. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 12: “More specifically, Kim does not teach or suggest acquiring information relating to an irradiation range of a light source existing in real space, determining whether that irradiation range intersects a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus, or modifying a virtual-space image based on such a determination. Nor does Kim disclose generating an image that reflects an influence exerted by a real-space light source as if that light source existed in the virtual space. Instead, Kim merely estimates general lighting conditions for use in rendering virtual content. Accordingly, Kim fails to teach or suggest the claimed features of determining a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus where it intersects the irradiation range of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space; and generating, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence exerted by light from the light source existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space, as recited in amended claim 1.” The examiner is not persuaded. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge.
PNG
media_image1.png
157
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim goes on to disclose “of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space” in Paragraphs 0022-0023 of Kim. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “and generates, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space” and “exerted by light from the light source” in Kim’s Paragraphs 0022-0023.
PNG
media_image2.png
481
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tomite discloses “an influence” in Paragraphs 0017; 0052.
PNG
media_image3.png
113
897
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space in Paragraphs 0017; 0052 of Tomite. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 14: “Because Tomite neither acquires information relating to an irradiation range of a real-space light source nor determines whether such an irradiation range intersects a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of a display apparatus, Tomite fails to teach or suggest determining a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus where it intersects the irradiation range of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space, as recited in amended claim 1. Likewise, Tomite does not teach generating an image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence exerted by light from the real-space light source based on such a determination.” The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner maintains the combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge.
PNG
media_image1.png
157
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kim goes on to disclose “of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space” in Paragraphs 0022-0023 of Kim.
PNG
media_image2.png
481
701
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Moreover, Tomite discloses “and generates, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence” in Paragraphs 0017; 00521. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 15: “Tsuge does not disclose or suggest a light source existing in real space that is captured by an image capture apparatus, nor does it disclose acquiring information relating to an irradiation range of such a real-space light source.” The examiner disagrees. Kim discloses “an acquisition unit configured to acquire information” in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023; 0074-0077. Tsuge discloses “the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584. Kim goes on to disclose “of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space” in Paragraphs 0022-0023. Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 15: “Moreover, Applicant submits that Tsuge does not disclose or suggest a virtual display surface. The laser irradiation spot (a laser irradiation range) 72 disclosed by Tsuge is merely a physical irradiation region on a glass plate 71 (array substrate) or glass substrate 74 during a manufacturing process. It is a real object not a virtual object, does not correspond to a display surface in a virtual space, and bears no relationship to a virtual display surface on which a virtual-space image is generated.” The examiner is not persuaded. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge.
PNG
media_image1.png
157
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 15: “Further, Tsuge does not teach the claimed determination of a region intersecting an irradiation range of a light source. Rather, Tsuge teaches that an annealing apparatus for irradiation of laser irradiation spot 72 recognizes positioning markers 73a and 73b provided on glass substrate 74 and moves laser irradiation spot 72 (paragraph [0172]). Tsuge does not teach or suggest determining whether any region intersects an irradiation range, let alone determining a region of a virtual display surface that intersects the irradiation range of a light source assuming that the light source exists in a virtual space.” The examiner is not persuaded. Because "applicants may amend claims to narrow their scope, a broad construction during prosecution creates no unfairness to the applicant or patentee." In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge.
PNG
media_image1.png
157
879
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 16: “Furthermore, it is submitted that the combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge also fails to teach or suggest these features. It is submitted that even if a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine the teachings of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge, the combination would not result in the above features of applicant's claim 1. Rather, the combination would, at most, teach (i) generating 2.5D or 3D models and estimating lighting conditions for rendering virtual content, as taught by Kim; (ii) extracting positional or attribute information relating to light sources and using such information to add virtual light sources or shadows when rendering a virtual image for mixed-reality compositing, as taught by Tomite; and (iii) controlling electrical driving and current stability of EL display hardware and performing laser annealing processes during display manufacture, as taught by Tsuge. However, the resulting combination still lacks the features of determining a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of a display apparatus where the virtual display surface intersects the irradiation range of a light source, assuming that the light source exists in the virtual space. Nor do the references teach or suggest generating, based on that determination, an image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence exerted by light from a light source existing in real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space, as expressly required by amended claim 1.” The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner maintains the combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Kim’s teachings of “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “determines a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus” in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge. Kim goes on to disclose “of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space” in Paragraphs 0022-0023 of Kim. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “and generates, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space” and “exerted by light from the light source” in Kim’s Paragraphs 0022-0023. Tomite discloses “an influence” in Paragraphs 0017; 0052. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space in Paragraphs 0017; 0052 of Tomite. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 17: “For the foregoing reasons, Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge, either alone or in combination, do not disclose, teach, or suggest the features of determining a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus where it intersects the irradiation range of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space; and generating, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence exerted by light from the light source existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space, as recited in Applicant's amended claim 1.” The examiner is not persuaded. The examiner maintains the combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language. More specifically, Kim’s teachings of “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “determines a region of a virtual display surface corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus” in Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “where it intersects the irradiation range” in Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge. Kim goes on to disclose “of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space” in Paragraphs 0022-0023 of Kim. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “and generates, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space” and “exerted by light from the light source” in Kim’s Paragraphs 0022-0023. Tomite discloses “an influence” in Paragraphs 0017; 0052. The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge goes on to disclose the Applicant’s claim language of “existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space in Paragraphs 0017; 0052 of Tomite. MPEP § 2106 states Office personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed Cir. 1997). Accordingly, the examiner maintains the rejection.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 18: “Moreover, it is submitted that claims 18 and 19, which recite the feature of calculating, for each pixel of the background image, an amount of variation in saturation and luminance as the influence exerted by the real light source, based on a luminance distribution in the region of the virtual display surface intersecting the irradiation range of the real light source and based on a color temperature of the real light source, are also patentably distinct over the cited references.” The examiner is not persuaded. The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses the Applicant’s claim language of “wherein the generation unit calculates, for each pixel of the background image” in Paragraphs 0055-0058 of Tomite. Tsuge discloses “an amount of variation in saturation” in Paragraph 0149. Kim discloses “and luminance as the influence exerted by the real light source” in Paragraphs 0022-0023. Tsuge goes on to disclose “wherein said influence is based on a luminance distribution”, “in the region of the virtual display surface intersecting the irradiation range” and “based on a color temperature” in Paragraphs 0169; 0172; 0213; 0584. Kim discloses
“real light source” in Paragraphs 0022-0023. Moreover, the combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses calculating, for each pixel of the background image Paragraphs 0055-0058 of Tomite. Kim goes on to disclose “an amount of variation in saturation and luminance as the influence exerted by the real light source” in Paragraphs 0022-0023. Tsuge discloses “based on a luminance distribution in the region of the virtual display surface intersecting the irradiation range” and “based on a color temperature” in Paragraphs 0169; 0172; 0213. Kim discloses “of the real light source” in Paragraphs 0022-0023.
The Applicant alleged the following on page 20: “The Examiner also dismisses several of Applicant's arguments as merely "rehashing arguments already presented above." Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action does not substantively address the specific deficiencies identified in Tsuge.” The examiner disagrees and welcomes the Applicant to an interview to discuss this application, more in details.
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) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, US 20100033484 in view of Tomite, US 20080024523 and in further view of Tsuge, US 20050030264.
Claim 1:
Kim discloses an image processing apparatus (See Kim Abstract; Paragraph 0012). However, Kim fails to disclose an influence. This feature is disclosed in paragraph 0052 of Tomite. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kim by the teachings of Tomite to enable improved generating images by incorporating influences, more effectively (See Tomite Field of Invention).
Additionally, the combination of Kim and Tomite failed to disclose “a determination of a region of a virtual display interface intersecting with irradiation range of the light source.” However, this feature is disclosed in paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584 of Tsuge. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Kim and Tomite by the teachings of Tsuge’s image display system to enable improved light emitting display panel, more effectively (See Tsuge’s Technical Field).
As modified:
The combination of Kim, Tomite and Tsuge discloses the following:
one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) and thereby function as:
an acquisition unit configured to acquire information (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023; 0074-00772) relating to an irradiation range (See Tsuge Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584) of a light source existing in real space (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-00233) captured by an image capture apparatus (See Kim Paragraphs 0023-0024; 00324);
and a generation unit configured to generate (See Kim Figure 2; Paragraphs 0022-00235), based on a three-dimensional model of a virtual space (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-00236), an image of the virtual space for displaying on a display apparatus disposed in the real space (See Kim Paragraph 00227),
wherein the generation unit generates (See Kim Figure 2; Paragraphs 0022-00238),
determines a region of a virtual display surface (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) corresponding to a display surface of the display apparatus (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) where it intersects the irradiation range (See Tsuge Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584) of the light source assuming that the light source is in the virtual space (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-00239);
and generates, based on the determination, the image representing the virtual space that reflects an influence (See Tomite Paragraphs 0017; 005210) exerted by light from the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-002311) existing in the real space as if that light source existed in the virtual space (See Tomite Paragraphs 0017; 0052).
Claim 2:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses a determination unit (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) configured to determine whether the light existing in the real space (See Tomite Paragraphs 0016-0018; 0033-0034) and emitted by the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) exerts an influence on the virtual space (See Tomite Paragraph 0052), wherein, if it is determined that the light exerts an influence on the virtual space (See Tomite Paragraph 0052), the generation unit generates the image in which the influence (See Tomite Paragraph 0052) exerted by the light has been affected (See Tomite Paragraph 0052).
Claim 3:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the determination unit (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) determines that the light existing in the real space (See Tomite Paragraphs 0016-0018; 0033-0034) exerts an influence on the virtual space (See Tomite Paragraph 0052), if it is determined that the light reaches a display surface of the display apparatus (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 4:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the generation unit (See Kim Figure 2; Paragraphs 0022-0023) generates the image in which the influence (See Tomite Paragraph 0052) exerted by the light existing in the real space (See Tomite Paragraphs 0016-0018; 0033-0034) has been affected (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), by changing a brightness (See Kim Paragraph 0082) and a saturation of a virtual region of the image lighted up and influenced by the light (See Kim Paragraph 0082).
Claim 5:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the generation unit (See Kim Figure 2; Paragraphs 0022-0023) generates the image (See Kim Figure 2; Paragraphs 0022-002312) by rendering the three-dimensional model (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-002313) of the virtual space using a viewpoint (See Kim Paragraph 002214) of the image capture apparatus (See Kim Paragraphs 0023-0024; 003215), and the generation unit (See Kim Figure 2; Paragraphs 0022-002316) generates the image (See Kim Paragraphs 0023-0024; 003217) in which the influence (See Tomite Paragraph 0052) exerted by the light (See Kim Paragraphs 0012; 0022-002318) existing in the real space (See Tomite Paragraphs 0016-0018; 0033-0034) on the virtual space has been affected (See Kim Paragraph 002219), by mapping the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) onto the virtual space (See Kim Paragraph 002220) and rendering the three-dimensional model (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-002321).
Claim 6:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the influence (See Tomite Paragraph 0052) includes shade and shadow (See Tomite Paragraphs 0034-0036) that occurs in a virtual object present in the virtual space due to the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0012; 0022-002322).
Claim 7:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the influence includes shadow (See Tomite Paragraphs 0034-0036) produced by a real object due to the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 8:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the information relating to the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) includes, out of a three-dimensional position of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), an orientation or irradiation direction of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), a brightness of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), and a type of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), at least the three-dimensional position (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 9:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the acquisition unit (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) acquires the three-dimensional position of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), based on an image captured of the real space by a different image capture apparatus from the image capture apparatus (See Kim Paragraphs 0023-0024; 003223).
Claim 10:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the acquisition unit acquires the three-dimensional position (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) and the orientation of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), based on an output of a sensor (See Tomite Paragraph 0043) provided in the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 11:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the acquisition unit (See Kim Figure 1; Paragraphs 0022-0023) acquires the information relating to the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) from a control apparatus (See Tomite Paragraph 0071) configured to control an operation of the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 12:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein at least some of the information relating to the light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) is stored in advance (See Kim Paragraph 0057).
Claims 13-15:
Claims 13-15 are rejected on the same basis as claim 1.
Claim 16:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the acquired information relating to the irradiation range (See Tsuge Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584) of the light source existing in real space (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) includes information on at least one light source that a real object autonomously controls or at least one light source that dynamically changes (See Kim Paragraphs 0008-0012).
Claim 17:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the acquired information relating to the irradiation range (See Tsuge Paragraphs 0149; 0172; 0213; 0584) of the light source existing in real space (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) includes information on at least one light source that a real object autonomously controls or at least one light source that dynamically changes (See Kim Paragraphs 0008-0012).
Claim 18:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses wherein the generation unit calculates, for each pixel of the background image (See Tomite Paragraphs 0055-0058), an amount of variation in saturation (See Tsuge Paragraph 0149) and luminance as the influence exerted by the real light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), wherein said influence is based on a luminance distribution (See Tsuge Paragraph 0584) in the region of the virtual display surface intersecting the irradiation range (See Tsuge Paragraphs 0169; 0172) of the real light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) and based on a color temperature (See Tsuge Paragraph 0213) of the real light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Claim 19:
The combination of Kim, Tomite, and Tsuge discloses calculating, for each pixel of the background image (See Tomite Paragraphs 0055-0058), an amount of variation in saturation and luminance as the influence exerted by the real light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023), based on a luminance distribution in the region of the virtual display surface intersecting the irradiation range (See Tsuge Paragraphs 0169; 0172) of the real light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023) and based on a color temperature (See Tsuge Paragraph 0213) of the real light source (See Kim Paragraphs 0022-0023).
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent No. 7468778 discloses a method of providing a visual representation of a scene to a participant in a studio is provided, wherein the studio is arranged to be viewed by a camera to provide a camera image and has at least a portion of a background object arranged to be keyed out of the camera image by a keying process. The method includes obtaining an estimate of the viewpoint of the participant; rendering an image of the scene based on the viewpoint of the participant; and projecting at least a portion of the rendered image onto the background object to provide a projected image portion visible to the participant. The projected image portion is projected so as to be keyed out of the camera image by the keying process.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEREE N BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-4229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 5:30-2:00 PM 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, SAID BROOME can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/SHEREE N BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 September 21, 2026
1 Paragraph 0052 of Tomite recites “selects and extracts a limited number of light sources which may have significant influence.”
2 Paragraph 0074 of Kim recites “A content object generator generates a content object model for acquiring 3D content with respect to a plurality of images acquired according to the setting result.”
3 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” and “a light source estimated based on an image used to generate the 2.5D background model”.
4 Paragraph 0032 of Kim recites “2D/3D camera”.
5 Paragraph 0074 of Kim recites “A content object generator generates a content object model for acquiring 3D content with respect to a plurality of images acquired according to the setting result.”
6 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” and “a light source estimated based on an image used to generate the 2.5D background model”.
7 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform.”
8 Paragraph 0074 of Kim recites “A content object generator generates a content object model for acquiring 3D content with respect to a plurality of images acquired according to the setting result.”
9 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” and “a light source estimated based on an image used to generate the 2.5D background model”.
10 Paragraph 0052 of Tomite recites “selects and extracts a limited number of light sources which may have significant influence.”
11 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” and “a light source estimated based on an image used to generate the 2.5D background model”.
12 Paragraph 0074 of Kim recites “A content object generator generates a content object model for acquiring 3D content with respect to a plurality of images acquired according to the setting result.”
13 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” and “a light source estimated based on an image used to generate the 2.5D background model”.
14 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform.”
15 Paragraph 0032 of Kim recites “2D/3D camera”.
16 Paragraph 0074 of Kim recites “A content object generator generates a content object model for acquiring 3D content with respect to a plurality of images acquired according to the setting result.”
17 Paragraph 0032 of Kim recites “2D/3D camera”.
18 Paragraph 0012 of Kim recites “automatically extracting a moving object and implementing AR, and a more realistic image, and realistic content can be generated by using a rendering scheme by means of simple light source estimation.”
19 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform.”
20 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform.”
21 Paragraph 0022 of Kim recites “a 3-Dimensional (3D) virtual studio platform” and “a light source estimated based on an image used to generate the 2.5D background model”.
22 Paragraph 0012 of Kim recites “automatically extracting a moving object and implementing AR, and a more realistic image, and realistic content can be generated by using a rendering scheme by means of simple light source estimation.”
23 Paragraph 0032 of Kim recites “2D/3D camera”.
Prosecution Insights