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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 06/16/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered but are held unpersuasive. Examiner’s response to the presented arguments follows below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16, 19-21, the Applicant argues:
“However, the recitations regarding a positional relationship being used in mask generation are not satisfied by luma mask generation using luminance difference in an image, which does not even consider spatial or tracking data between respective positions or orientations of a display device and a camera when generating such a mask.” [Remarks: Page 13]
“Moreover, with respect to the secondary reference, Ocean similarly lacks any teaching or suggestion related to mask generation according to the particularly recited positional relationship.” [Remarks: Pages 13-14]
“In addition, neither reference can teach or suggest the elements presently recited in relation to performing processing of separating object video and display video using mask information generated as discussed above.” [Remarks: Page 14]
“Applicant respectfully submits that there is nothing in the combination of Swatko and Ocean that would fairly teach or suggest the elements presently recited in relation to performing processing of separating object video and display video using mask information generated according to a positional relationship between a display device on which the display video is displayed and a camera that captures video including the display video, let alone in the manner particularly claimed.” [Remarks: Page 14]
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant argues:
“Dsouza fails to remedy the deficiencies of Swatko and Ocean, whether the references are considered alone or in combination, at least because Swatko in view of Ocean and Dsouza still would not teach or suggest, inter alia, ‘circuitry configured to generate mask information... wherein the mask information is generated according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera,’ as recited by amended independent claim 1...” [Remarks: Pages 15-16]
Regarding claims 8, 12-15, the Applicant argues:
“Watson fails to remedy the deficiencies of Swatko and Ocean, whether the references are considered alone or in combination, at least because Swatko in view of Ocean and Watson still would not teach or suggest, inter alia, ‘circuitry configured to generate mask information... wherein the mask information is generated according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera,’ as recited by amended independent claim 1...” [Remarks: Pages 16-17]
Regarding claim 10, the Applicant argues:
“Chu fails to remedy the deficiencies of Swatko and Ocean, whether the references are considered alone or in combination, at least because Swatko in view of Ocean and Chu still would not teach or suggest, inter alia, ‘circuitry configured to generate mask information... wherein the mask information is generated according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera,’ as recited by amended independent claim 1...” [Remarks: Pages 18-19]
Regarding claim 11, the Applicant argues:
“Gleich fails to remedy the deficiencies of Swatko and Ocean, whether the references are considered alone or in combination, at least because Swatko in view of Ocean and Gleich still would not teach or suggest, inter alia, ‘circuitry configured to generate mask information... wherein the mask information is generated according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera,’ as recited by amended independent claim 1...” [Remarks: Pages 19-20]
Regarding claims 17-18, the Applicant argues:
“Wan and Shaddix fail to remedy the deficiencies of Swatko and Ocean, whether the references are considered alone or in combination, at least because Swatko in view of Ocean, Wan, and Shaddix still would not teach or suggest, inter alia, ‘circuitry configured to generate mask information... wherein the mask information is generated according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera,’ as recited by amended independent claim 1...” [Remarks: Pages 20-21]
Regarding claims 22-29, the Applicant argues:
The “new claims 22-29, which depend upon respective ones of independent claims 19 and 20. Accordingly, claims 22-29 are dependent claims that are each also patentably distinguished over the cited art, at least in view of their respective dependencies, as well as for their additionally recited elements.” [Remarks: Page 21]
Examiner’s Response:
Regarding claims 1, 3-7, 9, 16, 19-21, the Examiner contends:
The argument fails because it isolates Swatko’s teachings from the proposed combination. While Swatko relies on a threshold brightness value to generate a luma mask, Ocean explicitly teaches generating and refining masks using depth and tracking data derived from a positional relationship. Ocean establishes an extrinsic room scale calibration that accounts for the offset between the tracker’s center and the video camera lens, mapping the virtual environment to real-world scale. Combining Swatko’s masking with Ocean’s tracking capabilities successfully teaches generating masks via positional relationships.
The argument fails because Ocean explicitly teaches generating mask information according to a positional relationship. Ocean discloses a tracking device attached to a video camera that tracks the camera’s position relative to its environment to generate a depth matte. Furthermore, Ocean teaches a “stage masking” feature where a user defines a 3D mask volume that corresponds to the physical boundaries of a green screen or stage. Once the camera’s view moves outside this physically mapped masked area, the virtual environment is rendered. This directly utilizes the positional relationship between the camera and the stage/display to generate mask information.
The argument fails because the combination of Swatko and Ocean successfully teaches separating the object video and display video using the generated mask information. Swatko teaches separating foreground subjects from a background using a luma mask. Ocean teaches using a refined depth matte (generated via positional tracking) to achieve virtual depth occlusion. This depth occlusion separates and virtually occludes elements of the video camera feed based on their physical position. Combining Swatko’s base separation processing with Ocean’s positional masking clearly teaches performing processing to separate the object video and display video using the generated mask information.
The argument fails for the same reasons as responses ii. and iii. Ocean teaches generating a real-time composite video by using a refined depth matte and tracking data to enforce 3D masking boundaries (stage masking) and depth occlusion. Combining Swatko’s background separation processing with Ocean’s depth masking and positional tracking renders obvious the separation of an object video and display video using a mask generated from the positional relationship between the camera and display device.
Regarding claim 2, the Examiner contends:
This argument fails because it relies entirely on the flawed premise that the base rejection (Swatko in view of Ocean) fails to teach the limitations of independent claim 1. As established in the responses above, the combination of Swatko and Ocean successfully teaches generating mask information according to a positional relationship and utilizing it to separate the object video from the display video. Because the base rejection is valid, arguing that Dsouza does not remedy a non-existent deficiency is unpersuasive.
Regarding claim 8, 12-15, the Examiner contends:
This argument fails because it relies on the flawed premise that Swatko and Ocean fail to teach the limitations of the independent claim. As outlined in the response to the independent claims, the base combination teaches generating mask information according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera. Therefore, arguing that Watson fails to cure this alleged deficiency is moot.
Regarding claim 10, the Examiner contends:
This argument fails because it is entirely dependent on the incorrect assertion that the base rejection (Swatko in view of Ocean) does not teach the limitations of the independent claim. Because Swatko and Ocean successfully teach the generation of mask information based on a positional relationship, the argument asserting that Chu fails to remedy this deficiency is ineffective.
Regarding claim 11, the Examiner contends:
This argument fails because it relies solely on the assertion that the base combination of Swatko and Ocean fails to teach the independent claim limitations. Since Swatko and Ocean successfully teach generating mask information according to a positional relationship between the display device and the camera, the argument that Gleich fails to remedy this alleged deficiency is moot.
Regarding claims 17-18, the Examiner contends:
This argument fails because it incorrectly assumes the base rejection of Swatko and Ocean is deficient regarding the independent claim. Since the combination of Swatko and Ocean successfully teaches generating mask information according to a positional relationship, the argument that Wan and Shaddix fail to remedy this non-existent deficiency is ineffective.
Regarding claims 22-29, the Examiner contends:
The argument is moot, since Swatko and Ocean teach claims 19-20. See response regarding claims 1-21, above.
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 1-4, 6-7, 9, 16, 19-20, 22-24, 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swatko et al., hereinafter referred to as Swatko (US 9,681,041 B1) in view of Ocean et al., hereinafter referred to as Ocean et al., hereinafter referred to as Ocean (US 2022/0351751 A1).
As per claim 1, Swatko discloses an information processing device (Swatko: Abstract) comprising:
circuitry configured to
generate mask information (luma mask 66) for each frame of a captured video (motion picture) captured by a camera (41) including an object video (video portion associated with subject 1 or object 61) of an object (subject 1 or object 61) positioned in front of a display device (backdrop 31) and a display video (video portion associated with background 62), and
perform processing of separating the object video (i.e., video portion pertaining to subject 1 or object 61) and the display video (background) in the captured video (motion picture 27), by using the mask information (Col. 11, ll. 39-55; Col. 13, ll. 54-57; Fig. 9 disclose the “resulting luma mask generated pixel by pixel thereby delineates [includes the result of claimed perform processing of separating] the subject [pertinent to claimed object video] with the color black (or opaque appearance) and the background [claimed display video] with the color white (or transparent appearance)” and Col. 11, ll. 56-60 disclose “Additionally, … composing, using the luma mask [claimed by using the mask information], data 63 comprising the digital photograph of the one or more subjects [describes claimed object video] with data 68 comprising digital background image 64 [claimed perform processing of separating the object video and the display video]”.),
wherein the mask information is generated according to a (backdrop 31) and the camera (Swatko: Figs. 1, 9-10, 20; Col. 9, ll. 64 – Col. 10, ll. 1-15; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65 disclose a program-controlled unit 42 of camera 41 captures motion picture containing subject 1 object 61 along with a background 62 that represents LED backdrop 31 and applies a luma mask 66 that performs the process of separating the subject and the background according to a relationship between the backdrop 31 and the camera 41.), and
However, Swatko does not explicitly disclose “… a positional relationship between the display device and the camera.”.
Further, Ocean is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a positional relationship between the display device and the camera (Ocean: Para. [0055] discloses “tracks its position relative to the environment [claimed positional relationship]”; Ocean: Paras. [0065], [0078] disclose “tracker and camera extrinsic relationship, and room scale relationship of camera and set or “boundaries of the actual green screen [claimed display device]”.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko and Ocean before him or her, to modify the image processing system of Swatko to include the positional relationship feature as described in Ocean. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve masking accuracy by providing algorithms that enable advanced object-environment tracking alignment.
As per claim 2, Swatko-Ocean disclose the information processing device according claim 1, wherein the positional relationship is based on tracking information indicating a position and a shooting direction of the camera with respect to the display device (Ocean: Para. [0063] discloses “determine position and orientation of the video camera [claimed tracking information indicating a position and a shooting direction of the camera with respect to the display device]”).
As per claim 3, Swatko discloses information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform control of the camera based on a result of the separating (Ocean: Para. [0046] discloses “control focus, aperture, shutter [claimed perform control of the camera based on a result of the separating]”).
As per claim 4, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the control of the camera includes focus control (Ocean: Para. [0046] discloses “control focus [claimed wherein the control of the camera includes focus control]”).
As per claim 6, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform control related to display of a subject on the camera that captures the display video of the display device and the object, based on a result of the separating (Swatko: Col. 12, ll. 16-19 discloses “effecting display to the one or more subjects of the composite digital image on display screen 54 [claimed perform control related to display of a subject on the camera that captures the display video of the display device and the object, based on a result of the separating]”).
As per claim 7, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform control related to a focusing operation on the camera that captures the display video of the display device and the object, based on a result of the separating (Ocean: Para. [0038] discloses “mostly-transparent box may appear within the camera view to indicate what is in focus [claimed perform control related to a focusing operation on the camera that captures the display video of the display device and the object, based on a result of the separating]”).
As per claim 9, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform control related to the display video of the display device based on a result of the separating (Swatko: Col. 10, ll. 16-18 disclose “illumination intensity 33 of the second light emitting source is adjusted using a variable voltage supply [claimed perform control related to the display video of the display device based on a result of the separating]”).
As per claim 16, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry generates the mask information for each respective frame of the captured video at a time of imaging, and performs the processing of separating in the respective frame (Swatko: Col. 17, ll. 61-62 discloses “each of the first through eighth functions is operated 15 times, in sequence, resulting in an enhanced composite digital image for each of the 15 frames [claimed generates the mask information for each respective frame of the captured video at a time of imaging, and performs the processing of separating in the respective frame]”).
As per claims 19-20, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 1 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
As per claims 22-24 & 26-28, the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 2-4 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claims 5, 8, 12-15, 25, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swatko in view of Ocean in further view of Watson et al., hereinafter referred to as Watson (US 2021/0287385 A1).
As per claim 5, Swatko-Ocean disclose the information processing device according to claim 3 (Swatko: Abstract),
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “wherein the control of the camera includes exposure control”.
Further, Watson is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the control of the camera includes exposure control (Watson: Para. [0029] discloses “adjusts its parameters when taking various images... capture data (e.g. exposure... ) [claimed wherein the control of the camera includes exposure control]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko, Ocean, and Watson before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko and Ocean to include the exposure control feature as described in Watson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by providing algorithms that enable feedback regarding geometric properties used to capture image data.
As per claim 8, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 11, ll. 22-28; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44 disclose using a selected preview window [focusing operation], the contents of which are to be included in one or more photographs to be taken, the one or more subjects define, e.g., using a camera height/centering control such as “UP” and “DOWN” buttons 25, a plurality of objects to be included in the window for the one or more photographs to be taken).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… exposure control …”.
Further, Watson is in the same field of endeavor and teaches performing exposure control (Watson: Paras. [0029], [0032], [0061] disclose camera assembly 125 captures image data that can be appended with metadata describing other details of the image data including sensory data (e.g. temperature, brightness of environment) or capture data (e.g. exposure, warmth, shutter speed, focal length, capture time, etc.) and adjusts its parameters when taking various images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Watson before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko-Ocean to include the exposure control feature as described in Watson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by providing algorithms that enable feedback regarding geometric properties used to capture image data.
As per claim 12, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… metadata to be associated with the captured video …”.
Further, Watson is in the same field of endeavor and teaches metadata to be associated with the captured video (Watson: Paras. [0029], [0032], [0061] disclose camera assembly 125 captures image data that can be appended with metadata describing other details of the image data including sensory data (e.g. temperature, brightness of environment) or capture data (e.g. exposure, warmth, shutter speed, focal length, capture time, etc.) and adjusts its parameters when taking various images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Watson before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko-Ocean to include the metadata feature as described in Watson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by providing algorithms that enable feedback regarding geometric properties used to capture image data.
As per claim 13, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… wherein the metadata includes a determination result …”.
Further, Watson is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the metadata includes a determination result (Watson: Paras. [0029], [0032], [0061] disclose camera assembly 125 captures image data that can be appended with metadata describing other details of the image data including sensory data (e.g. temperature, brightness of environment) or capture data (e.g. exposure, warmth, shutter speed, focal length, capture time, etc.) and adjusts its parameters when taking various images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Watson before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko-Ocean to include the metadata feature as described in Watson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by providing algorithms that enable feedback regarding geometric properties used to capture image data.
As per claim 14, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 12, (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… wherein the metadata includes a control parameter …”.
Further, Watson is in the same field of endeavor and teaches wherein the metadata includes a control parameter (Watson: Paras. [0029], [0032], [0061] disclose camera assembly 125 captures image data that can be appended with metadata describing other details of the image data including sensory data (e.g. temperature, brightness of environment) or capture data (e.g. exposure, warmth, shutter speed, focal length, capture time, etc.) and adjusts its parameters when taking various images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Watson before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko-Ocean to include the metadata feature as described in Watson. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve user experience by providing algorithms that enable feedback regarding geometric properties used to capture image data.
As per claim 15, Swatko-Watson disclose the information processing device according to claim 12, wherein the metadata includes the mask information (Watson: Paras. [0029], [0032], [0060]-[0061] disclose camera assembly 125 includes two cameras and is configured to capture stereo image data that can be appended with metadata describing other details of the image data including binary segmentation masks).
As per claims 25 & 29 the claim(s) recites analogous limitations to claim(s) 5 above, and is/are therefore rejected on the same premise.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swatko in view of Ocean in further view of Wan et al., hereinafter referred to as Wan (US 2017/0370702 A1).
As per claim 21, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the positional relationship indicates a detected depth of the display device (Ocean: Para. [0033] discloses “generate depth maps … depth tool can be set to a particular depth range [claimed detected depth of the display device]”),
However, Swatko does not explicitly disclose “detected depth of the display device... detected using subject light obtained on a same optical axis”.
Further, Ocean is in the same field of endeavor and teaches detected depth of the display device (Ocean: Para. [0033] discloses “generate depth maps... depth tool can be set to a particular depth range [claimed detected depth of the display device]”).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “which is detected using subject light obtained on a same optical axis as used by the camera to capture the captured video”.
Furthermore, Wan is in the same field of endeavor and teaches which is detected using subject light obtained on a same optical axis as used by the camera to capture the captured video (Wan: Para. [0021] discloses “both visible and infra-red (IR) light 202 can be received at the input of the optical receiver. An optical beam splitter 201 then directs light of different wavelengths [claimed detected using subject light obtained on a same optical axis as used by the camera]”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean, and Wan before him or her, to modify the camera system to include the optical axis feature as described in Wan. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve object recognition functions by providing a multi-functional camera that integrates advanced image capturing components.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swatko in view of Ocean in further view of Chu et al., hereinafter referred to as Chu (US 2022/0256116 A1).
As per claim 10, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform control related to (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44 disclose the camera captures objects with an LED backdrop via programmed control 42).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… a focus state of a display video …”.
Further, Chu is in the same field of endeavor and teaches a focus state of a display video (Chu: Paras. [0070], [0078] disclose analyzing the video data to determine boundaries between the foreground portion 501 and the background portion 503 based on the difference in focus therebetween, which is derived from adjusting an effective aperture of the lens 204 to change an actual depth of field of the camera device to the desired depth of field 314 a, b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Chu before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko-Ocean to include the focus state feature as described in Chu. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve composition of the video stream by providing additional integrated hardware and software to differentiate between desired and undesired portions of a video stream.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swatko in view of Ocean in further view of Gleich (DE-102013209323-A1).
As per claim 11, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform control related to (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44 disclose the camera captures objects with an LED backdrop via programmed control 42).
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… performs control related to luminance of a display video …”.
Further, Gleich is in the same field of endeavor and teaches performs control related to luminance of a display video (Gleich: Figs. 1-2 & Para. [0041] disclose controlling brightness of the partial regions of the LED wall region 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Gleich before him or her, to modify the LED camera configuration of Swatko-Ocean to include the luminance control feature as described in Gleich. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve image capture quality by providing techniques to prevent disruptive reflections onto the foreground.
Claim 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swatko in view of Ocean in view of Wan et al., hereinafter referred to as Wan (US 2017/0370702 A1) in further view of Shaddix et al., hereinafter referred to as Shaddix (US 2021/0064849 A1).
As per claim 17, Swatko discloses the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the mask information is generated based on a video obtained by
However, Swatko-Ocean do not explicitly disclose “… an infrared short wavelength camera that captures a video having a same visual field range as the captured video.”
Further, Wan is in the same field of endeavor and teaches an infrared (Wan: Fig. 2 & Para. [0021] disclose an infrared wavelength camera 205 that captures a same video as the captured video).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean and Wan before him or her, to modify the camera system of Swatko-Ocean to include the infrared camera feature as described in Wan. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve object recognition functions by providing a multi-functional camera that integrates advanced image capturing components.
However, Swatko-Ocean-Wan do not explicitly disclose “… an infrared short wavelength camera …”
Furthermore, Shaddix is in the same field of endeavor and teaches an infrared short wavelength camera (Shaddix: Para. [0034] discloses camera system 120 including SWIR sensors 122).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and having the teachings of Swatko-Ocean-Wan and Shaddix before him or her, to modify the camera configuration of Swatko-Ocean-Wan to include the infrared short wavelength camera feature as described in Shaddix. The motivation for doing so would have been to improve signal-to-noise ratio associated with binary mask images by providing additional threshold conditions during image capture.
As per claim 18, Swatko-Ocean-Wan-Shaddix disclose the information processing device according to claim 17, wherein the infrared short wavelength camera is configured in such a manner that subject light is incident on a same optical axis as the camera that obtains the captured video obtained by capturing the display video and an object (Swatko: Figs. 1, 10, 20; Col. 15, ll. 37-67; Col. 16, ll. 47-65; Col. 18, ll. 37-44 disclose the camera captures objects with an LED backdrop via programmed control 42 and Wan: Fig. 2 & Para. [0021] disclose an infrared wavelength camera 205 that is configured in such a manner that subject light is incident on a same optical axis as a visible camera 206 that obtains the same scene and Shaddix: Para. [0034] discloses camera system 120 including SWIR sensors 122).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and can be viewed in the list of references.
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 PEET DHILLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 5am-1:30pm.
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, Sath V. Perungavoor can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/PEET DHILLON/Primary Examiner
Art Unit: 2488
Date: 08-02-2026
Prosecution Insights