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 / Arguments
112(b). Applicant’s amendment overcomes the 112(b) rejection.
103 Rejections. Applicant’s amendment to the independent claims does not, with respect, overcome the prior art of record. The language of the amendment is more stylistic than substantive, meaning the same is being claimed, before and after the amendment. Using claim 1 as an example:
Before:
superimpose a first displayed area on the wide-view image,
the first displayed area being an area of the wide-view image having been displayed by the display.
After:
superimpose the calculated first displayed area on the wide-view image …the “calculated first displayed area” that is now superimposed (previously it was called “first displayed area”), is actually based on:
first area information for specifying a first predetermined area,
the first predetermined area being an area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed by the display
Basically, the amended “calculated first displayed area” is based on “an area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed”, whereas in the original claim, it was “first displayed area” being “an area of the wide-view image having been displayed”. The added claim language “previously” and even “calculated” (and walking through first area information to specify a first predetermined area”), are respectfully somewhat redundant added claim language, and/or do not amend the claims in a manner to change the scope to overcome the prior art of record.
See remainder of this office action for more details, and rejection to new claims.
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) 1-4, 11, 13, 14, 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2014/0270692).
Regarding claim 1:
Suzuki teaches: a display terminal (Fig. 1: 2 terminal device) comprising:
a display (Fig. 1: 11 LCD) to display a predetermined area of a wide-view image (see e.g. para. 97: “a partial area of a panoramic image is displayed on a display device” whereby the “panoramic image” is a wide-view image, and the “partial area” of corresponds to a predetermined area of a wide-view image. See also para. 97, which describes “panoramic image” as:” a panoramic image is an image of a wider viewing angle than the viewing angle of the image displayed on a display device….[in at least one embodiment] a panoramic image is used which has an omni-direction (360°) viewing angle for the up, down, left and right directions (see FIG. 3)); and
circuitry (para. 395, circuitry) configured to in re-display of at least a partial area of the wide-view image,
calculate a first displayed area based on first area information for specifying a first predetermined area (the first area information for specifying a first predetermined area can be “history information” per Suzuki, see below mapping and paras. 188-91 for description of “history information”), the first predetermined area being an area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed by the display; and superimpose the calculated first displayed area on the wide-view image (Figs. 24 and/or 25 teach this. In Fig. 24, item 56 corresponds to a calculated first displayed area. In Fig. 25, alternatively, item 11 teaches this feature.
For more teaching: see para. 149, “In other embodiments, the information processing system 1 may display an entire panoramic image on the monitor”, in combination with: Fig. 24, which illustrates a superimposed re-display of a partial area of the wide-view image (here, a partial area based on history information, see Fig. 24:56)) Suzuki also teaches, in para. 213, that: “In other embodiments, the information processing system 1 may display an entire panoramic image on the monitor 4, and display history-related information together with the entire panoramic image (while being superimposed on the entire panoramic image).” and that the history-related information can be an image, per para. 211. For more description on what “history information” is, see paras. 188-91 of Suzuki.
Modifying the applied reference(-s), such that the partial area is superimposed, per Suzuki, on an image of the entire wide-view or panoramic image, also per Suzuki, which teaches: (1) superimposition of partial area image onto another image, and (2) gives an example whereby the “another image” can be the entire image (see para. 213, quoted above), and (3) gives a specific example where history information (such as the partial are based on history information, per Fig. 24, is superimposed on the entire wide-view image, is all of taught and suggested by Suzuki, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 1, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to: acquire, in re-display of the at least a partial area of the wide-view image, second area information for specifying a second predetermined area, the second predetermined area being another area of the wide-view image having previously been displayed by the display,
wherein, when the circuitry displays at least a partial area of the wide-view image for the next time, the circuitry is configured to superimpose the first displayed area and a second displayed area on the wide-view image, the second displayed area being based on the second area information, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Suzuki teaches that it is known to superimpose, in re-display, multiple images (example: see Fig. 25). In terms of two images being a “first displayed area” and a “second displayed area”, the second displayed area being based on second area information, Suzuki teaches at least one example where two such images are displayed, such that: a user can see a panoramic video of an intended display range using the terminal device 2, and at the same time can see a panoramic video of a display range that has been seen by another user at the same time (see para. 216).
The ”display range” of these two videos means that these videos are predetermined areas of a wide-view image, or subsets thereof (see para. 99, which expressly states that, “Hereinafter, a range of a panoramic image to be displayed on a display device is referred to as a “display range”.
Modifying Suzuki, in view of same, such to superimpose two displayed areas on the wide-view image, as mapped in claim 1, all of which is taught by Suzuki, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is further configured to superimpose, on the wide-view image,
Information, together with the first displayed area, indicating a number of times the first displayed area was displayed, and
Information, together with the second displayed area, indicating a number of times the second displayed area was displayed and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Suzuki teaches that it is known to superimpose or display “history-related information”, such as “the number of times the current display range has been displayed in past instances of playback of the panoramic video….” quoting para. 202. See also paras 203-05 and Fig. 22. Modifying the applied references, such to include the above two pieces of information indicating the number of times the above displayed areas were displayed (as mapped in claim 1), per the teachings of Suzuki, which teach that displaying such historical viewing information is known, is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
The prior art included each element recited in claim 3, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 4:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: acquire, in re-display of the at least the partial area of the wide-view image, second area information for specifying a second predetermined area, the second predetermined area being another area of the wide-view image having previously been displayed by the display,
wherein, when the circuitry displays at least a partial area of the wide-view image for the next time, the circuitry is configured to superimpose a second displayed area based on the second area information on the wide-view image, without superimposing the first displayed area on the wide-view image, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A). See above mapping to claim 2, which applies here. The difference between claim 3 and claim 4 (the instant claim) is that instead of both the first and second displayed areas being superimposed, as in claim 2, here only the second displayed area is superimposed. This is taught by Suzuki, which isn’t limited to what or how many areas are superimposed.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 11:
Suzuki teaches: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the display is at least one of a display of the display terminal, a display of virtual reality (VR) goggles connected to the display terminal, or a display of a projector connected to the display terminal (para. 89: “an image obtained as a result of performing the process is displayed on the terminal device 2 and/or the monitor 4”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display hardware configurations to achieve desired results.
Regarding claim 13: see claim 1.
The method of claim 13 corresponds to the functions performed by the display terminal of claim 1; the same rationale for rejection applies.
Regarding claim 14:
Suzuki teaches: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the first area information for specifying the first predetermined area that is the area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed by the display is view information of the first predetermined area that is the area of the wide-view image that has been previously displayed by the display (see e.g. beginning at para. 188: “Storing History Information”, to para. 191, describes examples of history information as “view information” per Applicant’s claim 14. The many examples of history information as Applicant’s broadly claimed “view information” goes on through para. 230).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display information to tailor content.
Regarding claim 15:
Suzuki teaches: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the first area information for specifying the first predetermined area that is the area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed by the display is angle-of-view information of the first predetermined area that is the area of the wide-view image that has been previously displayed by the display (Fig. 35 and related description, using viewing direction and range identified by direction information teaches/suggested angle of view information as claimed).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to make use of known display information to tailor content.
Regarding claim 19:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate and superimpose the first displayed area as a still image during a further re-display of the wide-view image, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Suzuki teaches that display of still images are known (para. 252-53). Modifying the applied references, in view of same, such that the superimposed first displayed area is a still image, all of which taught by Suzuki, during a further re-display, also per Suzuki (see mapping to claim 1), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Herberger (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0155008 A1).
Regarding claim 5:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry is configured to initially display the at least a partial area of the wide-view image during recording of the wide-view image (see mapping to claim 1, which maps a display of a partial area of the wide-view image superimposed over the wide-view image, per Suzuki. Herberger teaches dynamic editing, including “providing a convenient way of video editing during recording of the video or during playback of the video”, quoting para. 43. A playback of the video (i.e. a wide-view with a partial area superimposed, as mapped in claim 1), to, for example, edit the recording, is an obvious combination of Suzuki and Herberger), and
re-display the at least a partial area of the wide-view image during playback of the wide-view image (Herberger, para. 43 and Fig. 3: 360:view/distribute finished recording. The playback of the finished recording (i.e. one that is edited) teaches this re-display step) (likewise, Suzuki teaches that playback after editing or changes made is known. See Suzuki, section “3. Inputting Comment by User”, beginning at para. 105, which describes an editing process of video, and playback), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 5, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 5, the first predetermined area is an area of the wide-view image having been displayed by the display during the recording of the wide-view image (Suzuki, “first area information” can be based on history-related information to be superimposed on the wide-view/panoramic image. See e.g. para. 213: “display history-related information together with the entire panoramic image (while being superimposed on the entire panoramic image).”,in combination with Fig. 24: 56, this is an example of history related information superimposed, from a different viewpoint or what a user viewed); and
the circuitry is configured to superimpose the first displayed area on the wide-view image (see above mapping to Suzuki, i.e. Fig. 24:56 is an example of superimposition on the wide-view image) over an elapsed playback time during the playback of the wide-view image (Herberger, para. 43, playback times for videos are known. Modifying the applied references, such to superimpose over an elapsed playback time of the wide-view image, such to, i.e. add effects (such as the superimposed image) during recording-editing, per Herberger (see Fig. 3), is all of taught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill)
the first displayed area being based on the first area information (see mapping to acquire function above, this is taught by Suzuki),
the elapsed playback time corresponding to an elapsed recording time within which the first area information is acquired during the recording of the wide-view image (Herberger, claim 1, playback time and elapsed recording time can be the same. A user can replay a video over its playback time and record. The examiner is interpreting this claim feature such that the “first area information” is acquired (or identified, seen, looked at) during a recording time of the wide-view image. Then, it is superimposed, but the “acquired step” is merely a user identifying or seeing or looking at the wide-view image to acquire first area information. Should Applicant disagree with this interpretation, Applicant should consider amending the claims to require a more specific interpretation), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7:
Suzuki and/or Herberger teach: the display terminal according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is configured to superimpose the first displayed area on the wide-view image over an elapsed playback time during re-playback of the wide-view image (Suzuki, superimposition of displayed areas is known, see Fig. 24; Herberger, this can be done when a video is played back over an elapsed playback time, for editing and recording. See Fig. 3 and claim 1),
the first displayed area being based on the first area information (see mapping to claim 6),
the elapsed playback time corresponding to the elapsed recording time within which the first area information is acquired during the recording of the wide-view image (see mapping to claim 6, Herberger teaches that elapsed playback time and recording time can be the same, i.e. record video during length of playback time).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained the above,and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8:
Suzuki and/or Herberger teaches: the display terminal according to claim 6, further comprising: a memory (Herberger, clam 30, portable devices that have memory are known, such as the terminal device (Fig. 2: 2) of Suzuki ) that stores the first area information that is acquired (Suzuki teaches storing “history information” that can be a display range of a panoramic video, said “display range” identifying a “first area information. See para. 163, 183, “Storing History Information” beginning at para. 188, and/or Fig., 20). Modifying the applied references, such that history information can be stored in a memory of a terminal device, per Suzuki and Herberger, such that the terminal device can store range information of the device, such as in the example of Fig. 2, facing right), would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill),
wherein the circuitry is configured to superimpose the first displayed area on the wide-view image, the first displayed area being based on the first area information stored in the memory (superimposition based on history information. See e.g. Fig. 24, Modifying the applied references, in view of Suzuki, such to have included superimposition of a first displayed area, per Suzuki, as history information that is stored, also taught by Suzuki, would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9:
Suzuki teaches: the display terminal according to claim 6, wherein the circuitry is further configured to: transmit the first area information that is acquired to an information management system that manages information (transmit to Fig. 1: 3 information processing device);
receive the wide-view image and the first area information, the wide-view image and the first area information being transmitted from the information management system (the information processing device (i.e. information management system) “performs an information process to be performed on the information processing system 1, such as a process of producing an image” (quoting para. 93). This corresponds to a teaching of receiving the wide-view image and first area information, to process them to produce an image); and
superimpose the first displayed area on the wide-view image that is received, the first displayed area being based on the first area information that is received (Suzuki teaches superimposition of images, as mapped throughout this office action. See e.g. Fig. 24). The superimposition is one of the “process of producing an image” performed by the information processing device/information management system of Suzuki).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to distribute data processing tasks.
Regarding claim 10:
Herberger teaches: the display terminal according to claim 9, wherein the wide-view image received from the information management system includes a voice of a voice-over (para. 27: “Additionally a microphone 130 might be utilized so that the user can add voice-over narration to a multimedia work”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied references, in view of Herberger, to have include a voice of a voice-over, as part of an edited video (also per Herberger, see Fig. 3 and mapping to claim 5), and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12: see also mapping to claim 1 and claim 9, similar claim features are mapped below
Suzuki teaches: a communication system (Fig. 1: 1 information processing system), comprising: an information management system (Fig. 1:3: information processing device) that manages a wide-view image (para. 93: the information processing device/information management system “performs an information process to be performed on the information processing system 1, such as a process of producing an image.” Images of Suzuki include a panoramic/wide-view image. See mapping to claim 1 and e.g. para. 97: “a panoramic image is an image of a wider viewing angle than the viewing angle of the image displayed on a display device….[in other embodiments] a panoramic image is used which has an omni-direction (360°) viewing angle for the up, down, left and right directions (see FIG. 3).”; and
a display terminal (Fig. 2: 2 terminal device) including:
a display (Fig. 2: 11 LCD) to display a predetermined area of a wide-view image (see mapping to claim 1); and
circuitry (para. 395, processors that have circuits are known, such as ones for the display terminal) configured to transmit first area information for specifying a first predetermined area to the information management system (claim 9, transmit step or function), the first predetermined area being an area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed by the display (claim 9, which depends from claim 6, which has this feature),
wherein the information management system includes another circuitry (para. 395, processors that have circuits are known, such as ones for information management system Fig. 1: 3) configured to transmit the wide-view image and the first area information to the display terminal (see Fig. 1, the communication channel path between the information processing device 3 (information management system) and the terminal device 2 (display terminal), whereby as mapped above, the information processing device performs image processing),
wherein the circuitry of the display terminal is configured to
receive the wide-view image and the first area information (receive from Fig. 1: 3 after processing is performed, e.g. per. Para. 93: “an image (panoramic image) is produced by the information processing device 3, and the produced image is output to the terminal device 2 “. Modifying the applied references, such that the image produced is a panoramic, wide-view image and the first area information is one embodiment taught by Suzuki. See also mapping to claim 1), and
in re-display of at least a partial area of the wide-view image, calculate a first displayed area based on the first area information for specifying the first predetermined area that is the area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed by the display; and superimpose the calculated first displayed area on the wide-view image that is received (see mapping to claim 1, and para. 88: “the information processing system produces and displays an image (panoramic image) on a display device (the terminal device 1 …produces and displays an image (panoramic image) on a display device (the terminal device 2 “ See also mapping to claim 1, re: re-display at least a partial area, based on information received from Fig. 1: 3).
The prior art included each element recited in claim 12, although not necessarily in a single embodiment, with the only difference being between the claimed element and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of certain elements in a single prior art embodiment, as described above.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Gordt (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2023/0072692 A1).
Regarding claim 16:
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined and modified the applied reference(-s), in view of same, to have obtained: the display terminal according to claim 15, wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate the first displayed area as a point-of-view display area indicating the area of the wide-view image having been previously displayed based on the angle-of-view information of the first predetermined area that is the area of the wide-view image that has been previously displayed by the display, and the results of the modification would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention. See MPEP §2143(A).
Gordt teaches that viewing direction of a user (here, one that might wear VR goggles) is relevant to providing image experiences (Abstract, para 14). Modifying the references, in view of same, such to use calculated point of view display area, based on the angle of view of the image, is all of aught and suggested by the prior art, and would have been obvious and predictable to one of ordinary skill.
*Claim interpretation: the examiner is interpreting “point-of-view” as related to the user. Applicant’s claim language is very broad, and Applicant’s specification only has “point-of-view” four times, with not much description other than associating with a user or a virtual camera, neither of which is claimed. Should Applicant require a more narrow, required interpretation, claim 16 should be amended.
One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and in that combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately. One of ordinary skill in the art would have also recognized that the results of the combination were predictable as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 18:
Gordt teaches: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the display is that of virtual reality (VR) goggles connected to the display terminal, and the circuitry is configured to calculate the first displayed area based on changes in orientation of the VR goggles (see e.g. claim 4 and/or para. 19, VR goggles are known, as well as determining viewing direction of the goggles to adjust imagery).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to provide users with location/position appropriate immersive experiences.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Hartrell (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2017/0356083).
Regarding claim 17:
The applied reference(-s) to claim 1 do not proactively teach claim 17.
In analogous art, Hartrell teaches: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to superimpose the calculated first displayed area by applying a translucent mask to an area other than the calculated first displayed area (e.g. para. 68, translucent masks as an image processing to display desired results is known; applying this in a manner suggested to areas other than the calculated first area is an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill. Applicant’s specification describes no criticality to translucent masks to the inventive concept, but rather as a design alternative to showing displayed area).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to provide users with visual satisfaction.
Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding claim 20:
The applied reference(-s) to claim 1 do not proactively teach claim 20.
In analogous art, AAPA teaches: the display terminal according to claim 1, wherein the wide-view image is a 360-degree spherical image (specification, page 1, “Related Art”, first paragraph, 360-degree spherical images as wide view images have been known).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of Applicant’s claims, to have further modified the applied reference(-s) in view of same to have obtained the above, motivated to engage with known image format types.
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.
* * * * *
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sarah Lhymn whose telephone number is (571)270-0632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00 AM to 6:00 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
Sarah Lhymn
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/Sarah Lhymn/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613