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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Claim 19 recites a program for causing an information processing apparatus to execute generating a virtual camera video. Computer programs, per se, are not in one of the statutory categories of invention because a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer - the computer program itself is not a process. MPEP § 2106. A computer program, at best, is a functional descriptive material per se. Descriptive material can be characterized as either "functional descriptive material" or "nonfunctional descriptive material." Both types of "descriptive material" are non-statutory when claimed as descriptive material per se, 33 F.3d at 1360, 31 USPQ2d at 1759. When functional descriptive material is recorded on some computer-readable medium, it becomes structurally and functionally interrelated to the medium and will be statutory in most cases since use of technology permits the function of the descriptive material to be realized.
Compare In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1035 (Fed. Cir. 1994) )(discussing patentable weight of data structure limitations in the context of a statutory claim to a data structure stored on a computer readable medium that increases computer efficiency) and >In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d *>1354,
1360- 61,31 USPQ2d *>1754, 1759 (claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim) with Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361,31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held non-statutory). See MPEP 2106.01.
The rejection of claim 19 above may be overcome by amending the claim
to, for example, add the phrase "A non-transitory recording medium storing a computer program for causing an information processing apparatus to execute …”. in this claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
2. 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 1,3-5,16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Maruyama US 20200084426.
Regarding claim1, Maruyama provides for video control unit ( Fig.1A see virtual camera control unit 106, see [0023]) that generates a virtual camera video ( Fig.1A see virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104, see [0023]) to be used for an output video on a basis of a captured video by a camera ( Fig.1A see video switching apparatus 30, [0030]), and
performs composition update control of the virtual camera video on a basis of determination information regarding a subject in the captured video (see [0024], see “The virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104 controls the image quality of the virtual viewpoint video by changing the voxel size of the three-dimensional model in accordance with the target image quality, and by changing the amount of the multi-viewpoint video used as a texture”) or the output video (see [0024], see “ The virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104 outputs the generated virtual viewpoint video to the video switching apparatus 30”).
Regarding claim 3, Maruyama provides for, wherein the video control unit executes performing control related to imaging operation of the camera as the composition update control ( Fig.1A see virtual camera control unit 106, see [0023]) that generates a virtual camera video ( Fig.1A see virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104, see [0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Maruyama provides for, wherein the video control unit executes generating the virtual camera video ( Fig.1A see virtual camera control unit 106, see [0023]) that generates a virtual camera video ( Fig.1A see virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104, see [0023]),
on a basis of a plurality of the captured videos by a plurality of the cameras (Fig.1A, see virtual camera 106 and actual camera 20).
Regarding claim 5, Maruyama provides for, wherein the video control unit executes generating a plurality of the virtual camera videos ( Fig.1A see virtual camera control unit 106, see [0023]) that generates a virtual camera video ( Fig.1A see virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104, see [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Maruyama provides for, an output control unit that automatically switches the virtual camera video as the output video among a plurality of the virtual camera videos ( see [0024], see “ The virtual viewpoint video generation unit 104 outputs the generated virtual viewpoint video to the video switching apparatus 30”).
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 1. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 1. Except for a program ( see [0019] of Maruyama, see “ The functions of the processing units are achieved by reading and executing a computer program with a controller such as a CPU described later with reference to FIG. 1B”). Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 1. It recites similar limitations as claim 1. Hence it is similarly analyzed and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama US 20200084426 in view of Thagadur Shivappa US 20170295446(hereinafter Thagadur).
Regarding claim 6, Maruyama does not provide , wherein the video control unit executes performing the composition update control such that a specific subject is preferentially included in the virtual camera video. Thagadur teaches the above missing limitation of Maruyama ( see [0036] of Thagadur, see “As non-limiting examples, of a sound source may be a character speaking in a movie, an instrument playing in a concert, a person speaking during a teleconference, a vehicle making noise in a virtual reality video game”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Thagadur with the system and method of Maruyama in order to obtain the claimed invention, via given a priority to a person speaking during a teleconference, a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama US 20200084426 in view of Lutter US 20240053611.
Regarding claim 13, Maruyama does not provide for, a user interface control unit that performs user interface control of displaying the captured video and the virtual camera video. Lutter teaches the above missing limitation of Maruyama , see [0063] of Lutter, see “A video feed 56 of the physical environment from camera 18 is displayed on virtual panel 34. The virtual panel may be positioned to cause the video feed of the physical environment to overlay corresponding portions of the physical environment. In addition to the camera application displaying the video feed, the camera application may include camera control user interface elements 58 overlayed on video feed 56 on a portion of virtual panel 34”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Lutter with the system and method of Maruyama in order to obtain the claimed invention, via the head-mounted device may display a virtual object that is perceived at an apparent depth within the physical environment of the user(see [0018], a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (MPEP 2143).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama US 20200084426 in view of Sienel et al. US 20160182591.
Regarding claim 17, Maruyama does not provide for, the information processing apparatus being configured as a cloud server that receives the captured video by the camera. Sienel teaches the above missing limitation of Maruyama, see {0062], see “It is noted that the embodiments may be, technically implemented on cloud servers hosting distributable video and other multimedia applications, end-devices like mobile phones, network cameras”. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Sienel with the system and method of Maruyama in order to obtain the claimed invention, via a cloud servers hosting distributable video and other multimedia applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2,7-12,14-15 are allowed.
Reasons for Allowance
5. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior arts of Maruyama US 20200084426 in view of Thagadur Shivappa US 20170295446(hereinafter Thagadur) and Lutter US 20240053611 and Sienel et al. US 20160182591, either alone or combined failed to teach or suggest for features/limitations of claims 2,7-12,14-15.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bhuruth et al. US 20190287302, is cited because the reference teaches “The server computer 1399 operates to identify the significant events, for example by analysis video data received from the camera network 120, or using sensors attached to the objects 140 (for example players or a ball). The server 1399 returns identification of the significant events to the tablet device 1301”, in [0081].
Lloyd et al. US 20090219291, is cited because the reference teaches “[0003] According to a first aspect of the invention there is therefore provided a method of controlling a virtual camera position in a 3D virtual reality environment to enable a director controlling said environment to create a movie of a story set within said environment”.
Yee et al. US 20180167553, is cited because the reference teaches “[0051] The processing unit 805 receives controlling input from a controller 180 that specifies the position of a virtual camera within the arena 110. The processing unit 805 may be configured to synthesise an image for a specified camera point of view (or viewpoint) 190 based on video streams available to the processing unit 805 from the cameras 120A-120X surrounding the arena 110”.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI BAYAT whose telephone number is (571)272-7444. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 M-F. 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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-2705183. 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.
/ALI BAYAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677