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
Applicant previously filed claims 1-4, and 6-14. Claims 9 and 10 have been cancelled, and new claim 15 has been added. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 11-14 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 11-15 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant's argument that a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would not be motivated to combine the teachings of Shimazaki et al. with Vlaskamp to arrive at the claimed invention, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
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., content-aware feature detection to drive the guide information) 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).
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant is again reminded that 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).
In light of the above remarks, the claims are rejected using the same art as before.
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.
Claim 1-4, 6, 7, and 11-15 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 recites the limitation "the left-eye image or right-eye image that corresponds to the first feature point" in claim 1. However, earlier the claim states “a first feature point representing a feature in the stereo video”. It is unclear if the first feature point is in a left-eye image or right-eye image or a stereo video as claimed. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Independent claims 13 and 14 have similar language and are rejected for the same reasons.
Dependent claims are also rejected for the same reasons due to their dependence.
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, 6, 7, and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimazaki et al. (US 20130222376 A1) in view of Vlaskamp (US 20210181840 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Shimazaki et al. teaches an image processing apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a video image obtaining unit configured to obtain video data corresponding to a stereo video image including a left-eye image and a right-eye image (Paragraphs 35-43; Paragraphs 51-59); and
a control unit configured to control guide information and the stereo video image to be displayed based on the video data, the guide information varying depending on a position on the stereo video image and indicating a deviation between the left-eye image and the right-eye image in a vertical direction (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraph 77); and
a reception unit configured to receive a user instruction to display the guide information, wherein the control unit displays the guide information upon reception of the user instruction, the guide information being a guide to determine a deviation (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95; Paragraphs 96-106);
a position obtaining unit configured to obtain positional information indicating a position on the stereo video image (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95);
a first obtaining unit configured to obtain a first feature point representing a feature in the stereo video image present in a partial area including the indicated position (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95);
a second obtaining unit configured to obtain a second feature point, in the other of the left-eye image or right-eye image that corresponds to the first feature point, wherein the control unit displays the guide information based on the first feature point and the second feature point (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95), the guide information indicating a vertical deviation between the left-eye image and the right-eye image at the first feature point and the second feature point (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95; Paragraphs 96-106),
wherein the control unit displays the guide information through the first feature point and the second feature point (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95; Paragraphs 96-106; clearly teaches displaying a guide to indicate parallax level deviation of an object within the two images in the stereo image).
However, Shimazaki et al. fails to explicitly teach the guide information being a horizontal straight line across the left-eye image and the right-eye image to determine a deviation in one of the left-eye image and the right-eye image, wherein the control unit displays the guide information as a straight line.
Vlaskamp, however, teaches a reception unit configured to receive a user instruction to display the guide information, wherein the control unit displays the guide information upon reception of the user instruction (Paragraph 258; Paragraph 288; Paragraph 309, “As additional options, the calibration process may be recommended to users by a user manual, customer service, or other source and block 1802 may involve receiving a user request to perform the calibration process.”), the guide information being a horizontal straight line across the left-eye image and the right-eye image to determine a deviation in one of the left-eye image and the right-eye image, wherein the control unit displays the guide information as a straight line passing through the first feature point and the second feature point (Paragraphs 5-7; Paragraphs 10-17; Paragraphs 28-30; Paragraphs 49-52; Paragraphs 63-65; Paragraphs 157-161; Paragraph 275; Paragraphs 294-307; Paragraphs 314-317; the first and second feature points correspond to the same object in different images, thus given the object detection described the alignment guide horizontal line would necessarily also pass through both a first and second feature point in the stereo image).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to have modified the image processing apparatus of Shimazaki et al. to include the horizontal alignment markers, as shown in Vlaskamp above, in order to reduce viewer discomfort due to vertical misalignment (See Vlaskamp Paragraph 159).
Regarding Claim 2, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the control unit includes a guide calculation unit configured to calculate the guide information varying depending on the positional information, and controls a display unit to display the calculated guide information and the stereo video image (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraph 77; Paragraphs 88-95).
Regarding Claim 3, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the guide information is information indicating the deviation in a partial area including a position indicated by positional information (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 88-95).
Regarding Claim 4, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the guide information is a horizontal straight line passing through the partial area (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95).
Regarding Claim 6, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the guide information is information indicating a guide to correct the deviation, instead of indicating the deviation (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95; Paragraphs 96-106).
Regarding Claim 7, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the guide information is not only information indicating the deviation, but also information indicating a guide to correct the deviation (Paragraph 59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95; Paragraphs 96-106).
Regarding Claim 11, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the second feature point is obtained in a stereo video image of a frame identical to the frame of the stereo video image in which the feature point obtained by the first obtaining unit is present, and wherein the control unit displays, as the guide information, information for displaying a straight line passing through the feature point obtained by the first obtaining unit and the second feature point (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95).
Regarding Claim 12, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, Shimazaki et al. further teaches wherein the second feature point is obtained in a stereo video image of a frame different from a frame of the stereo video image in which the feature point obtained by the first obtaining unit is present, and wherein the control unit displays, as the guide information, information for displaying a horizontal straight line passing through the second feature point (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95).
Method claim 13 is drawn to the method of using corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1, this claim has similar limitations and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as used above.
Claim 14 has similar limitations to those rejected in claim 1 above, and is rejected for the same reasons as used above. Shimazaki et al. further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions which, when executed by a computer, cause the computer to perform a method (Paragraphs 191-193).
Regarding Claim 15, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit controls the left-eye image and the right-eye image to be displayed as two separate images that the left-eye image and the right eye image are arranged side by side in a direction perpendicular to the vertical direction (Figure 15A, Illustrates Parallax in a pre-adjusted image and an image after adjustment, parallax is a horizontal variance between a left image and a right image; Paragraph 5, “an apparatus for preparing a left-eye image and a right-eye image which have parallax as a stereo image, and projecting them on left and right eyes independently through shutter type eyeglasses to provide stereoscopic vision is present.”; here it is clear that the images as displayed when being viewed stereoscopically necessarily are arranged horizontally next to each other to each eye; Paragraphs 7-13).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARHAN MAHMUD whose telephone number is (571)272-7712. The examiner can normally be reached 10-7.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at 5712727383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FARHAN MAHMUD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483
Prosecution Insights