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 Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered; however, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because of the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims.
First, the “identifying” limitation states the operating system identifies virtual camera controls which have the following details: 1) they are to be performed on the first image data, 2) they are configured to represent a physical camera control of the physical camera and 3) they comprise an image correction operation.
Ikeda discloses all these requirements via a group of control parameters they “identify” which includes the clipping parameters and the camera control parameters of paragraph 161-165. These parameters are “identified” by image analysis unit 302 and clipping region calculation unit 304 (as seen in Fig. 21) which is on an external device 120 from the controlled camera at least making the control “virtual camera controls”. The clipping correction is then implemented by Ikeda in various embodiments on the first image by clipping execution unit 305 which further solidifies that the identified camera controls include virtual camera controls as the camera does not implement the clipping which would create a virtual pan/tilt/zoom when tracking the target object. This simulated pan/tilt/zoon from the clipping operations then also clearly satisfy that the virtual camera controls are configured to represent a physical camera control of the physical camera. Finally, the virtual camera controls identified by the external device of Ikeda comprise image correction operations via both the clipping operation and feedback camera parameters from paragraph 162-165.
Applicant argues these operations from paragraph 162-165 are not performed on the first image data as they are fed back to the camera instead, but the claim as written does require they are performed on the first data, but merely that a virtual camera control is to be performed on it, which is satisfied by the clipping/tracking operations. That is, later in the generating step the claim merely required “manipulated image data” be “based at least in part on” the first image data and the identified virtual camera controls. Ikeda satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of this language in multiple ways. The first being that a clipped version of the first image data is generated by the clipping execution unit 305 but manipulated image data is also “generated” by feeding back the parameters from paragraph 162-165 to the camera control unit 225 for the next image capture. That is, the generating step is not limited to only generating a manipulated image of the first image data as appears to be the argument of Applicant.
Therefore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees that Ikeda does not disclose amended claim 1.
While not currently required, the Examiner would like to point out as an attempt to advance prosecution, that it is known in the art to shift some of the image corrections of Ikeda that are only disclosed as being done by the camera, such as white balancing or shake/blur correction to an external device instead. The Examiner will provide examples in the conclusion section.
Also, the Applicant did not traverse the Official Notice taken in the rejection of claim 6, thus the concepts and advantages of centering a person in a clipped area and where the centering is done within an acceptable amount (i.e. threshold amount) are well known and expected in the art are considered admitted prior art by the Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-13, 15-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0203194 A1 to Ikeda.
With respect to claim 1 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, a method, comprising: receiving, by an operating system running on a computing device, first image data from a physical camera of the computing device (paragraph 88-89), the operating system being associated with one or more applications (Fig. 21 and paragraph 108 and 269; where the method can be done of various devices such as a PC); identifying, by the operating system, a virtual camera control to be performed on the first image data, the virtual camera control configured to represent a physical camera control of the physical camera (paragraph 86 and 115; where a clipped image region which is used for tracking a subject to get the proper field of view is determined which corresponds to a virtual camera field of view from the physical camera field of view) and comprising an image correction operation (paragraph 115, 117 and 162-165; where the identifying includes the clipping and also the calculating of optimum parameters for image capturing that include image processing operations like white balance); generating, by the operating system, manipulated image data based at least in part on the first image data and the identified virtual camera control (paragraph 208); and providing, by the operating system, at least a portion of the manipulated image data to a particular application of the one or more applications (paragraph 121-122; where the particular application is the one to set the next camera parameters).
With respect to claim 2 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, by the operating system of the computing device, the virtual camera control as one or more settings associated with the computing device (paragraph 158-159; where new parameters are calculated and thus store (at least temporarily) for them to be used); receiving, by the operating system, second image data; applying, by the operating system, settings corresponding to the identified virtual camera control to the second image; generating, by the operating system, second manipulated image data based at least in part on the second image data and the identified virtual camera control; and providing, by the operating system, at least a portion of the second manipulated image data to the particular application (paragraph 110 and 118; where the process is continuously repeated and thus a “second image” is generated just like the previous one).
With respect to claim 3 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein the first image data comprises video data associated with a live video stream captured by the physical camera (paragraph 77 and 114).
With respect to claim 5 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein the first image data comprises a full sensor readout characterized by a first resolution (Fig. 1 and paragraph 76 and 89; where the captured image 20 is a preclipped image and thus “a full sensor readout” as it is the unaltered image output from the camera, it would inherently have a corresponding resolution), and wherein generating the manipulated data further comprises: receiving, by a virtual camera of the operating system, a signal corresponding to the virtual camera control from the operating system; performing, by the virtual camera of the operating system, the virtual camera control by altering at least a portion of the full sensor readout; and generating, by the virtual camera of the operating system, the manipulated image data from the altered portion of the full sensor readout, the manipulated image data characterized by a second resolution, less than the first resolution (paragraph 116 and 156; where the manipulated image is a portion of the image from the camera, and thus has a smaller resolution).
With respect to claim 7 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein a corrective operation comprises at least one of a motion control or a distortion correction (paragraph 168 and 172).
With respect to claim 8 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein performing the virtual camera control comprises: receiving, by the operating system, a user input corresponding to the virtual camera control; and performing, by the operating system, the virtual camera control on the first image data based at least in part on the user input (paragraph 447).
With respect to claim 10 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein the particular application is executed on the computing device (paragraph 237).
With respect to claim 11 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein the particular application is executed on a second computing device, and wherein providing the manipulated image data to the particular application comprises transmitting the manipulated image data to the second computing device (paragraph 279 and Fig. 19).
Claims 12-13 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1 and 3 as they are corresponding apparatus claims to those of methods claims 1 and 3 respectively and as Ikeda discloses the method may be operated by a processor/memory embodiment in at least paragraph 369.
Claims 15-19 are rejected for similar reasons as claims 1-5 as they are corresponding program claims to those of methods claims 1 and 3 respectively and as Ikeda discloses the method may be operated by a program on in a processor/memory embodiment in at least paragraph 369.
With respect to claim 21 Ikeda discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image correction operation comprises at least one of motion correction (paragraph 119; where the tracking is a motion correction for movement of the target), distortion correction (paragraph 166 and 168-169; where defocusing and blur correction are forms of distortion), focal length correction (paragraph 166), light correction (paragraph 167; where white balancing is a light correction).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 6, 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0203194 A1 to Ikeda.
With respect to claim 6 Ikeda discloses, in Fig. 1-29, the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the virtual camera control comprises: detecting, by the operating system, an object within the image data; determining, by the computing device, whether to include the object within an output frame of the image data; and in accordance with a determination to include the object within the output frame, and wherein the manipulated image data is further transformed (paragraph 143-145; where face or other regions can be detected as objects and the clipping region set to encompass them).
Ikeda does not expressly disclose the including of the object in the region includes centering the object in the clipping region and centering, by the operating system, the object within a threshold amount of a center of the output frame; though some examples do appear to be centered such as Fig. 4 and 10A.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of centering a person in a clipped area and where the centering is done within an acceptable amount (i.e. threshold amount) are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have includes a centering option for the detected subject in Ikeda as it would merely be use of a known technique for determining clipped regions of interest to improve a similar device, such as the one disclosed by Ikeda, in the same way.
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6 above as Ikeda discloses an embodiment where the camera is moved as a PTZ camera based on the desired clipping region (Fig. 15 and paragraph 212) which therefore would teach wherein performing the virtual camera control comprises automatically centering an object in a field of view of the physical camera.
Claims 20 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 6 as it is a corresponding program claim to that of method claim 6 and as Ikeda discloses the method may be operated by a program on in a processor/memory embodiment in at least paragraph 369.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 20090066799 A1 to Whitcombe teaches storing shake correction parameters in images so that the image correction to reduce blur can be done by an external processor include of the camera.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2025/0350851 A1 to Korneliussen et al teaches in paragraph 53 that instead of a camera performing white balancing and in image correction at the camera it could instead be done remotely by a computer or server instead.
U.S. Patent Application 2012/0304121 A1 and U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0215051 A1 were in the cited International Search Report from the IDS filed 2/24/2026 as were also considered by the Examiner.
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 DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
September 11, 2026
Prosecution Insights