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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/03/2026 has been entered.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicant previously filed claims 1-4, and 6-14. Claim 8 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, 13, and 14 have been amended. Accordingly, claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9-14 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
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 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 § 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 9-14 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).
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).
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.
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 (Paragraphs 5-7; Paragraphs 10-17; Paragraphs 28-30; Paragraphs 49-52; Paragraphs 63-65; Paragraphs 157-161).
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 comprising a position obtaining unit configured to obtain positional information indicating a position on the stereo video image, 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 9, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, Shimazaki et al. further teaches further comprising a first obtaining unit configured to obtain a feature point representing a feature in the stereo video image, the feature point being present in the partial area (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95).
Regarding Claim 10, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, Shimazaki et al. further teaches further comprising a second obtaining unit configured to obtain a second feature point corresponding to the feature point from the video data,
wherein the control unit displays the guide information based on the second feature point (Paragraphs 7-13; Paragraphs 50-59; Paragraphs 71-73; Paragraphs 75-77; Paragraphs 81-85; Paragraphs 88-95).
Regarding Claim 11, Shimazaki et al. and Vlaskamp teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, 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 10, 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).
Conclusion
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