DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The present Application was filed in the United States on May 1, 2024, as a
continuation application of PCT application No. PCT/JP2022/040590, filed on October 31, 2022, and which claims priority to Japanese application No. 2021-179167, filed November 2, 2021. As such, the "effective filing date" of the present application is November 2, 2021. See, e.g., MPEP § 2152.01.
The reference, Suzuki (Pub. No. US 2025/0063138) cited to reject of the independent claims 1 and 11, was published on February 20, 2025, and was filed on June 18, 2024, as a national phase application of PCT application No. PCT/US2022/081860, having a filing date of December 16, 2022, and which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/292,271, which was filed on December 21, 2021. Suzuki does not claim priority to any other foreign or domestic applications. As such, without comment as to whether Suzuki is fully supported by the disclosure in the provisional application, the earliest possible priority date for Suzuki is December 21, 2021. Therefore, the previous rejections to claims were withdrawn. New ground of rejections with new references as followings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kumar et al. (US 2019/0215464).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar et al. (hereinafter “Kumar”) teaches a processing method for a conference system (i.e., video conference system 100, as shown in figure 1A), wherein the conference system comprises a controller (i.e., video decomposition system 106) including an operation element, a camera, a display, and a processing controller (i.e., room video conference endpoint includes one or more video cameras, displays, video stream receiver, face detector, video decomposer, etc.; para. [0039] and [0045]), the method comprising:
obtaining, by the processing controller, image data from the camera (i.e., video stream receiver 108 of video decomposition system 106 receives room video stream (read on image data) decoded by room media processor 104; para. [0040]);
detecting, by the processing controller, an object included in the image data (i.e., face detector 110 detects one or more faces (read on an object) that are present in a frame of the room video stream; para. [0041]);
causing, by the processing controller, the detected object to be displayed on the display (i.e., displaying either at the room video conference endpoint 102 (para. [0039]) or at a client device 116 (para. [0045]));
receiving, by the processing controller, a selection operation of the detected object through the operation element of the controller (i.e., receiving a selection, such as a selection of an individual by using a cursor controlling device; para. [0050]); and
performing, by the processing controller, image processing on the image data or control of the camera, with respect to the selected object (i.e., performing a transition from the “Room Fullview” mode to a “Room Splitview” mode as a result of the image processing performed by video decomposer 112, zooming, etc. as depicted in figure 1D; para. [0049] and [0051] -[0052]).
Regarding claim 2, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim in paragraphs [0058]-[0060].
Regarding claim 3, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim figures 4C-4E, 5C-5E, 6C-6E, and 10; paragraphs [0065]-[0066], [0069]-[0070], [0075], [0079] and [0159].
Regarding claim 4, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as a face the selected person 1, as shown in figure 1D, is performed to display at a central location around by other faces of persons 2, 3 and 4 (para.[0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 5, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as using a cursor controlling device to “click” on individuals, such person 1 and 2, as displayed on the client device 116 so that the user can request client device 116 to pay and zoom into the selected individuals, as shown in figures 4C-4E (para. [0064-[0066]).
Regarding claim 6, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as using a cursor controlling device to “click” on individuals, such as individual 2, to pan and zoom into the selected individual, as shown from figures 4C and 4D (para. [0065]). the client device 116 further removes the focus of other objects, such as persons 3 and 4 shown in figure 4C. the client device 116 further processes the image of selected person 2 to be rendered or display at a center in rendered frames 162 and 164, as shown in figures 4D and 4E (para. [0066]). Also, see paragraphs [0069]-[0070].
Regarding claim 8, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as individual face streams are sent or transmitted to any client devices, such as client device 116 connected to a media forwarding unit (MFU) 114 (para. [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as the selected person 1, as shown in figure 1D, is rendered on the display of client device 116 (para. [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 11, Kumar teaches a control apparatus (i.e., video decomposition system 106, as shown in figure 1A) for a conference system (i.e., the video conference system 100) comprising:
a controller including an operation element (i.e., room video conference endpoint; para. [0039]);
a camera;
a display (i.e., displays at either the room video conference endpoint 102 (para. [0039]) or at a client device 116 (para. [0045])); and
a processing controller configured to:
obtain image data from the camera (i.e., video stream receiver 108 of video decomposition system 106 receives room video stream (read on image data) decoded by room media processor 104; para. [0040]);
detect an object included in the image data (i.e., face detector 110 detects one or more faces (read on an object) that are present in a frame of the room video stream; para. [0041]);
cause the detected object to be displayed on the display (i.e., displaying either at the room video conference endpoint 102 (para. [0039]) or at a client device 116 (para. [0045]));
receive a selection operation of the detected object through the operation element of the controller (i.e., receiving a selection, such as a selection of an individual by using a cursor controlling device; para. [0050]); and
perform image processing on the image data or control of the camera, with respect to the selected object (i.e., performing a transition from the “Room Fullview” mode to a “Room Splitview” mode as a result of the image processing performed by video decomposer 112, zooming, etc., as depicted in figure 1D; para. [0049] and [0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 12, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim in paragraphs [0058]-[0060].
Regarding claim 13, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim figures 4C-4E, 5C-5E, 6C-6E, and 10; paragraphs [0065]-[0066], [0069]-[0070], [0075], [0079] and [0159].
Regarding claim 14, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as a face the selected person 1, as shown in figure 1D, is performed to display at a central location around by other faces of persons 2, 3 and 4 (para.[0051]-[0052]).
Regarding claim 15, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as using a cursor controlling device to “click” on individuals, such person 1 and 2, as displayed on the client device 116 so that the user can request client device 116 to pay and zoom into the selected individuals, as shown in figures 4C-4E (para. [0064-[0066]).
Regarding claim 16, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as using a cursor controlling device to “click” on individuals, such as individual 2, to pan and zoom into the selected individual, as shown from figures 4C and 4D (para. [0065]). the client device 116 further removes the focus of other objects, such as persons 3 and 4 shown in figure 4C. the client device 116 further processes the image of selected person 2 to be rendered or display at a center in rendered frames 162 and 164, as shown in figures 4D and 4E (para. [0066]). Also, see paragraphs [0069]-[0070].
Regarding claim 18, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as individual face streams are sent or transmitted to any client devices, such as client device 116 connected to a media forwarding unit (MFU) 114 (para. [0045]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 20, Kumar further teaches limitations of the claim, such as the selected person 1, as shown in figure 1D, is rendered on the display of client device 116 (para. [0051]-[0052]).
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2019/0215464) in view of Fujita et al. (US 10,453,214).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kumar teaches the image processing or the control of the camera, such as the video decomposer 112, as shown in figure 1A, performed as the image processing to detect face or faces cropped from a frame of the room video stream received from a camera of the room video conference endpoint 102. The video decomposer 112 focused on a face of a single person located in the room (para.[0045]). Kumar failed to clearly teach the feature of wherein the image processing or the control of the camera includes adjustment of white balance or exposure control. However, Fujita et al. (hereinafter “Fujita”) teaches an image capturing device (i.e., a camera) as shown in figure 1. Fujita further teaches the image capturing device including, inter alia, a camera signal processing circuit 3 (performed as an image processing) and an exposure control circuit 8 received information representing brightness as supplied results from the camera signal processing circuit 3 and performed exposure control based on the results (col.3, lines 62-67, col.4, lines 21-30 and col.6, lines 5-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of wherein the image processing or the control of the camera includes adjustment of white balance or exposure control, as taught by Fujita, into view of Kumar in order to provide the attention subject and make the attention subject clearly visible or recognition.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (US 2019/0215464) in view of KATO (Pub. No.: US 2016/0343347).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kumar teaches all subject matters as claimed above, except for the feature of wherein the image processing includes processing to extract the object from the image data to be superimposed on the image data. However, KATO teaches a transmission terminal 10, as shown in figure 3. The transmission terminal 10 comprises a display 120 to display pixels of the original image data, as shown in figures 32A and 32B. KATO further teaches the features of an auxiliary information image generation unit to generate an auxiliary information image in another layer different from the image data. KATO also teaches an auxiliary information image display unit to display the generated auxiliary information image in the segment area, such as superimposed upon, for example, the lower part of the image of the standard aspect ratio, as shown in figures 34A and 34B(para. [0254]-[0256] and [0259]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the feature of the feature of wherein the image processing includes processing to extract the object from the image data to be superimposed on the image data, as taught by KATO, into view of Kumar in order to provide an information event, such as an error message, to the user of the terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BINH TIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-7510. The examiner can normally be reached on 9-5. The Examiner’s fax number is (571) 273-7510 and E-mail address: BINH.TIEU@USPTO.GOV.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone or 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, FAN S. TSANG can be reached on (571) 272-7547.
Any response to this action should be mailed or handed carry deliveries to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Or faxed to: (571) 273-8300
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (FAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the FAIR system, see fitp://nair-direct.usoto.aqev. If you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Binh Kien Tieu/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2694
Date: June 2026
Prosecution Insights