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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination in the Application No. 18/753,056 filed 06/25/2024.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed as foreign Patent Application No. JP2023-123529, filed on 07/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered and attached by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier, as explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I (note that the list of generic placeholders below is not exhaustive, and other generic placeholders may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph):
A. The Claim Limitation Uses the Term "Means" or "Step" or a Generic Placeholder (A Term That Is Simply A Substitute for "Means")
With respect to the first prong of this analysis, a claim element that does not include the term "means" or "step" triggers a rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply. When the claim limitation does not use the term "means," examiners should determine whether the presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply is overcome. The presumption may be overcome if the claim limitation uses a generic placeholder (a term that is simply a substitute for the term "means"). The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Note that there is no fixed list of generic placeholders that always result in 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation, and likewise there is no fixed list of words that always avoid 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Every case will turn on its own unique set of facts.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
"attitude detector configured to detect an attitude…" in claim 14 implemented on hardware disclosed in para. [0046] (e.g., "…The attitude detector 119 is, for example, an acceleration sensor or a gyro sensor. …"); and
"display unit configured to display…" in claim 16 implemented on hardware disclosed in paras. [0027] and [0033] (e.g., "…In viewing a played-back moving or still image using a known three-dimensional display unit or so-called VR goggles, the user's right eye views the right-eye image, and the left eye views the left-eye image. …" and/or “The display unit 114 displays various information. The display unit 114 is realized, for example, by an electronic viewfinder or a liquid crystal panel. …”).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim(s) 18, line 2 of the claim recites the limitation “the attitude data”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner notes that this limitation may be referring to the limitation “data” in line 2 of claim 17. Thus, for examination purposes, the limitation “data” in line 2 of claim 17 will be read as “attitude data” as recited in claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1-4, 7-10, and 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tanioka (US 2014/0254008 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tanioka discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
a memory storing instructions (para(s). [0091], recite(s)
[0091] “Embodiments of the present invention can also be realized by a computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions recorded on a storage medium (e.g., non-transitory computer-readable storage medium) to perform the functions of one or more of the above-described embodiments of the present invention. …”
); and
a processor configured to execute the instruction to (para(s). [0091]—see citation above—further recite(s):
[0091] “…The computer may comprise one or more of a central processing unit (CPU), micro processing unit (MPU), or other circuitry, and may include a network of separate computers or separate computer processors. The computer executable instructions may be provided to the computer, for example, from a network or the storage medium. …”
):
acquire a first image and a second image with parallax, or one image including the first image and the second image (para(s). [0008], recite(s)
[0008] “According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided an image display device comprising: a stereoscopic screen which displays a left-eye image and an right-eye image that reflect a parallax between left and right eyes of a user;…”
, where a “right-eye image” and “left-eye image” are a first image and a second image with parallax, respectively),
output one stereoscopic viewable image by setting the first image as a right-eye image and the second image as a left-eye image in a first mode (para(s). [0041], [0044], and [0051], recite(s)
[0041] “FIGS. 5A and 5B show an embodiment of the control for reliably performing three-dimensional display in whatever orientation the device is operated, according to the present embodiment. FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating a procedure of the control. First, a detailed description will be given of the case where the device in a normal lateral orientation (hereinafter referred to as “laterally upright orientation”). Note that in this example, the direction of the display device that is to be parallel with the line of the left and right eyes in order for the user to observe the screen of the three-dimensional display device and obtain a stereoscopic view is referred to as “lateral”, and the direction perpendicular thereto is referred to as “lengthwise”. The orientation of the device when the lateral direction of the device is aligned with the left-right direction of the user is the lateral orientation. The orientation of the device when the lengthwise direction of the device is aligned with the left-right direction of the user is the lengthwise orientation. That is to say, if the device is in the lateral orientation, a stereoscopic view is possible. The lengthwise and lateral directions of the device are determined depending on the three-dimensional display method. …”
[0044] “In step S604, if the orientation specifying unit 402 further determines that the direction of the device is the laterally upright, the processing ends. As shown in FIG. 5A, the image information written in the left-eye VRAM 504 is connected to a driver 506 that drive the display elements for the left-eye image in one-to-one correspondence, and similarly, the image information written in the right-eye VRAM 505 is connected to a driver 507 that drives the display elements for the right-eye image in one-to-one correspondence. For this reason, the right-eye image is displayed as-is by the display elements for the right eye, and the left-eye image is displayed as-is by the display elements for the left eye.”
[0051] “FIG. 5C shows the details thereof. The image information for either the left or right eye is turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees, and is written in the right-eye VRAM 505 and the left-eye VRAM 504. That is to say, the same image information is written in these VRAMs. Then, the image information is displayed with the corresponding display elements by the corresponding driver 507 or 506. As a result, the same image, which is obtained by turning an original image for the left or right eye 90 (or 270) degrees is displayed with the display pixels for the right-eye image and the display pixels for the left-eye image. If the display device is used in the lengthwise orientation, the respective pixels for the left and right eyes are arranged in the lengthwise direction and disposed alternatingly, and accordingly, the image for a selected eye is two-dimensionally displayed, while the resolution in the left-right direction decreases.”
, where outputting “as-is” the “right-eye image” and “left-eye image” and/or the “image for the left or right eye” that has been “turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees” is outputting one stereoscopic viewable image (i.e., “stereoscopic view”) in a first mode (e.g., “upright”/“normal lateral orientation” and/or “left or right eye is turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees”), and
output one stereoscopic viewable image by setting the first image as the left-eye image and the second image as the right-eye image, and by rotating the first image and the second image around an optical axis in a second mode (para(s). [0041]—see citation in the preceding claim limitation above—, where para(s). [0041] and [0045] further recite(s):
[0041] “…Although the lateral direction of many devices is the longitudinal direction of the screen, this is not always the case, and the above-defined lengthwise and lateral directions of the device are not directly associated with the aspect ratio of the screen. There are two types of the lateral orientations of the device that are different 180 degrees, one of which will be called an upright (laterally upright) direction, and the other will be called an inverted (laterally inverted) direction.”
[0045] “Next, a detailed description will be given to the case where the device is in the laterally inverted orientation. In step S604, if the orientation specifying unit 402 determines that the device is in the laterally inverted orientation, in which the device is turned 180 degrees from the normal laterally upright orientation, the processing branches into step S605. In step S605, the three-dimensional image information conversion unit 403 turns the image information for the left eye and the right eye 180 degrees so as to display the normal image in a state where the three-dimensional display 30 is in the inverted orientation.”
, where “turn[ing] the image information for the left eye and the right eye 180 degrees” is outputting one stereoscopic viewable image (i.e., “stereoscopic view” as disclosed previously in para. [0041] above) by rotating (i.e., “turn[ing]”) the first image and the second image around an optical axis (i.e., “180 degrees from the normal laterally upright orientation”) in a second mode (e.g., “inverted orientation”)).
Regarding claim 2, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Tanioka further discloses the processor is configured to rotate the first image and the second image by 180 degrees around the optical axis in the second mode (para(s). [0041] and [0045]—see citations in similar limitation “output one stereoscopic viewable image… by rotating the first image and the second image around an optical axis in a second mode” in claim 1 above—, where “turn[ing] the image information for the left eye and the right eye 180 degrees” is rotating the first image and the second image by 180 degrees around the optical axis (i.e., “180 degrees from the normal laterally upright orientation”)).
Regarding claim 3, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Tanioka further discloses in the stereoscopic viewable image, the left-eye image is disposed on a left side, and the right-eye image is disposed on a right side (para(s). [0044]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” above—, where “the right-eye image is displayed as-is by the display elements for the right eye, and the left-eye image is displayed as-is by the display elements for the left eye” is the “right-eye image” disposed on a right side and a “left-eye image” disposed on a left side, respectively).
Regarding claim 4, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Tanioka further discloses in the stereoscopic viewable image, the left-eye image is disposed on a top side, and the right-eye image is disposed on a bottom side (para(s). [0050], recite(s)
[0050] “Next, a detailed description will be given to a case where the device is in the lengthwise orientation, that is, a case where the direction to be aligned with the left-right direction of the user in order to obtain a stereoscopic view is aligned with the up-down direction of the user. If the orientation specifying unit 402 determines in step S602 that the device is in the lengthwise orientation, the processing branches into step S607. Since the three-dimensional display 30 in the present embodiment cannot perform three-dimensional display when in the lengthwise orientation, the three-dimensional display 30 performs two-dimensional display when the device is used in the lengthwise orientation in the present embodiment. Accordingly, in step S607, the three-dimensional image information conversion unit 403 reads out the left (right)-eye image information from the three-dimensional image information storage unit 401 and turns the image information 90 degrees. Note that if the orientation specifying unit 402 determines in step S608 that the device is in the lengthwise orientation in which its upper side is its left portion when in the lateral orientation (hereinafter referred to as “left-up lengthwise orientation”), the processing branches into step S610, the left-eye image information 510 that has been turned 90 degrees in the three-dimensional image information conversion unit 403 is written in the right-eye VRAM 505, and the same left-eye image information 510 is written in the left-eye VRAM 504. …”
, where determining that the “direction to be aligned with the left-right direction of the user in order to obtain a stereoscopic view is aligned with the up-down direction of the user” is the left-eye image is disposed on a top side (i.e., “its upper side is its left portion”) and the respective right-eye image is disposed on a bottom side (i.e., the “left-up lengthwise orientation”)).
Regarding claim 7, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Tanioka further discloses the processor is configured to obtain attitude data of an image pickup apparatus that has generated the first image and the second image (para(s). [0035] and [0042], recite(s)
[0035] “…The three-dimensional display device 2 is further provided with an orientation detection unit 50 that detects an orientation (which can also be said as inclination in the up-down direction) of the three-dimensional display 30. Here, the detected orientation is represented by at least an orientation of a screen of the three-dimensional display 30 varying with a turn of the three-dimensional display 30 around an axis perpendicular to the vertical direction. Regarding the orientation of the screen to be detected, in practice, the lower side of the screen is detected using a gravity sensor, or if the three-dimensional display 30 is pivotably supported to a base, the direction relative to the base is detected using a microswitch or the like. The details will be described later.”
[0042] “The three-dimensional display procedure in the present embodiment will be described below in accordance with FIG. 6. Initially, in step S602, the orientation specifying unit 402 determines whether the orientation of the device is lengthwise or lateral, and if lateral, three-dimensional display is possible since the three-dimensional display 30 employs the parallax barrier method, and the processing branches into step S603. In step S603, the three-dimensional image display control unit 404 reads out left-eye image information 501 to be displayed from the three-dimensional image information storage unit 401, writes the read left-eye image information 501 in a left-eye video RAM (hereinafter referred to as “VRAM”) 504, similarly reads out right-eye image information 502 from the three-dimensional image information storage unit 401 and writes the right-eye image information 502 in a right-eye VRAM 505.”
, where the “orientation of the device” is attitude data of an image pickup apparatus that has generated (i.e., “display[ed]”) the first image (e.g., “right-eye” or “left-eye” image) and the second image (e.g., “left-eye” or “right-eye” image)), and
wherein based on the attitude data, the processor is configured to determine which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used for image processing to the first image and the second image (para(s). [0008]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “acquire a first image and a second image…” above—and para(s). [0041] and [0051]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” above—, where para(s). [0008] further recite(s):
[0008] “…detection unit which detect an orientation of the stereoscopic screen; and display control unit which display, on the stereoscopic screen, the left-eye image and the right-eye image in a predetermined direction and in a predetermined arrangement for the left eye and the right eye, respectively, based on the orientation detected by the detection unit.”
, where determining which “direction” and/or “arrangement” to “display, on the stereoscopic screen, the left-eye image and right-eye image” is determining which of the first mode (e.g., “laterally upright” and/or “the left or right eye is turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees” as previously recited in para(s). [0041] and [0051] above) and the second mode (e.g., “laterally inverted” as previously recited in para(s). [0041] above) is to be used for image processing the first and second images based on at least the attitude data (i.e., “orientation detected”)).
Regarding claim 8, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein Tanioka further discloses in the attitude data, a first range of the attitude data determined to belong to the first mode is wider than a second range of the attitude data determined to belong to the second mode (para(s). [0041], [0044], and [0051]—see citations in claim 1 limitations “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” above—, where para(s). [0049] further recite(s):
[0049] “FIG. 5B shows the details thereof. The image information for the left and right eyes is turned 180 degrees, and thereafter, the turned left-eye image 508 and the turned right-eye image 509 are written respectively to the right-eye VRAM 505 and the left-eye VRAM 504, and are displayed with the corresponding display elements by the corresponding drivers 507 and 506. As a result, in FIG. 7, the left-eye image that has been turned 180 degrees is displayed with the display pixels for the right-eye image, which are viewed by the left eye, and the right-eye image that has been turned 180 degrees is displayed with the display pixels for the left-eye image, which are viewed by the right eye, and thus, the originally-intended stereoscopic view of the three-dimensional image is possible.”
, where the “orientation” of the first and second images in a first mode of “laterally upright” and/or an “image …for either the left or right eye is turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees” comprises at least rotating an image up to “270 degrees” compared to rotating the image up to “180 degrees” in the second mode of “laterally inverted” is a first range of attitude data (e.g., “orientation”) belonging to a first mode is wider than a second range of attitude data determined to belong to the second mode (i.e., the rotation up to “270 degrees” as previously recited in para. [0051] above is considered a ‘first mode’ because the eye images “for the left or right eye 90 (or 270) degrees is displayed with the display pixels” for at least their respective side of the “right-eye image” and/or “left-eye image” rather than the eye images for their respective sides being inverted in the second mode as previously recited in para(s). [0049] above: “display pixels for the right-eye image, which are viewed by the left eye, and …the display pixels for the left-eye image, which are viewed by the right eye”)).
Regarding claim 9, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Tanioka further discloses the processor is configured to obtain attitude data of an image pickup apparatus that has generated the first image and the second image (para(s). [0035] and [0042]—see citations in similar limitation in claim 7 above—, where “orientation” is attitude data), and
wherein the processor is configured to obtain a tilt correcting value based on the attitude data, and outputs the stereoscopic viewable image that has been horizontalized based on the tilt correcting value (para(s). [0041], [0044], and [0051]—see citations in claim 1 limitations “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” and “…a second mode” above—, where “obtain[ing] a stereoscopic view is referred to as ‘lateral’ ” by rotating (i.e., “turn[ing]”) the first and second images is outputting the stereoscopic viewable image that has been horizontalized (i.e., “lateral[ized]”) based on an obtained tilt correcting value (i.e., “degrees” of turning and/or rotation) based on the attitude data (e.g., “orientation”)).
Regarding claim 10, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein Tanioka further discloses a rotation correcting angle around the optical axis of the stereoscopic viewable image horizontalized in the first mode relative to an input image, and a rotation correcting angle around the optical axis of the stereoscopic viewable image horizontalized in the second mode relative to an input image are different from each other (para(s). [0041], [0044], [0051], and [0045]—see citations in claim 1 limitations “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” and “…in a second mode” above—, where a rotation correcting angle in a first mode comprising of either none, “90 degrees”, and/or “270 degrees” is/are different than a rotation correcting angle in a second mode comprising “180 degrees”).
Regarding claim 19, the claim is the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes a computer to execute the image pickup method according to claim 19. Tanioka further discloses said non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (para(s). [0091]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “a memory…” above). Therefore, claim 20 recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning (see the analysis for claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanioka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibagami et al. (Shibagami; US 2020/0213575 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Shibagami teaches in the same field of endeavor of outputting a stereoscopic viewable image using a right-eye image and a left-eye image the stereoscopic viewable image is an image converted using an equidistant cylindrical projection method (para(s). [0039], [0084], and [0079], recite(s)
[0039] “…In addition, the image processing unit 24 performs basic image processing on two images (two fisheye images, two wide-angle images) obtained from the A/D converter 23a and the A/D converter 23b, and performs image connecting processing of synthesizing the two images having been performed to the basic image processing to generate a single VR image. …”
[0084] “In S302, the CPU 201 performs display processing in a VR view of the VR image acquired in S301. Original data (image data) of the VR image is an image which is distorted due to the use of, for example, equidistant cylindrical projection, and which is an image in a format that enables a position of each pixel to be associated with coordinates on a surface of a sphere. The original image of the VR image is mapped onto a sphere, and a part of the sphere is clipped and displayed. In other words, the image displayed in S302 is an image obtained by clipping and enlarging a part of the VR image and is an image in which distortion of the original image has been removed (or reduced).”
[0079] “…Furthermore, a display mode (a binocular VR view) is envisaged which displays two 180-degree VR images including a right-eye 180-degree VR image and a left-eye 180-degree VR image photographed by two camera units installed facing an object in a same direction and separated by a distance corresponding to parallax in such a manner that the two 180-degree VR images can be stereoscopically viewed. …”
, where the “VR image” is a stereoscopic viewable image (i.e., a “binocular VR view” image) converted using at least an “equidistant cylindrical projection”).
Since each of Tanioka and Shibagami each discloses outputting a stereoscopic viewable image from at least a right-eye image and a left-eye image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to try outputting the stereoscopic viewable image in the system of Tanioka using an equidistant cylindrical projection in order to output a right-eye image and a left-eye image as a stereoscopic viewable image as taught by Shibagami above.
Regarding claim 6, Tanioka discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Shibagami teaches in the same field of endeavor of outputting a stereoscopic viewable image using a right-eye image and a left-eye image the stereoscopic viewable image is a fisheye image that includes conversion coordinate information and information for determining either the left-eye image or the right-eye image (para(s). [0039], [0084], and [0079]—see citations in claim 5 above—, where the “VR image” outputted using “two fisheye images” by “equidistant cylindrical projection” (which associates each pixel of each fisheye image “with coordinates on a surface of a sphere”) is the stereoscopic viewable image being a fisheye image that includes conversion of coordinate information (e.g., “each pixel to be associated with coordinates on a surface of a sphere”) and information for determining either the left-eye image or right-eye image (e.g., “binocular VR view”)).
Since each of Tanioka and Shibagami each discloses outputting a stereoscopic viewable image from at least a right-eye image and a left-eye image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to try outputting the stereoscopic viewable image in the system of Tanioka as a fisheye image in order to output a right-eye fisheye image and a left-eye fisheye image as a stereoscopic viewable image as taught by Shibagami above.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanioka (US 2014/0254008 A1) in view of Kweon (KR 20180027379 A).
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations to claim 1 except that claim 11 recites an image pickup apparatus comprising:
a first optical system;
a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system; and
a processor configured to perform the instruction of the processor of the image processing apparatus of claim 1.
Tanioka discloses said “processor configured to perform the instruction of the processor of the image processing apparatus of claim 1” and therefore is rejected for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 1 (see the rejection for claim 1 above).
Where Tanioka does not explicitly disclose
a first optical system; and
a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system;
Kweon teaches in the same field of endeavor of outputting a stereoscopic viewable image by using at least a left-eye image and a right-eye image
a first optical system (description, para(s). [0052] and [0056] , recite(s)
[0052] “The market size of Virtual Reality (VR) is expanding day by day amidst explosive interest.
Fields similar to virtual reality include artificial reality (AR), augmented reality (AR), and mixed reality (MR). However, in order to enjoy virtual reality, artificial reality, and augmented reality as stereoscopic images, different viewpoints must be shown to the left and right eyes; the most representative device that makes this possible is the Head Mounted Display (HMD), which is worn on the head to display different images to the left and right eyes respectively. Figure 17 shows a Cardboard viewer made by Google, and Figure 18 is an example of a screen corresponding to the left eye and a stereoscopic image corresponding to the right eye on an HMD device.”
[0056] “In order to actually generate a stereoscopic image, a GoPro stereoscopic camera using two fisheye lenses can be used, as shown in Fig. 20. …”
, where a first one of the “two fisheye lenses” is a first optical system and the other of the “two fisheye lenses” is a second optical system); and
a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system (description, para(s). [0052] and [0056]—see citations in preceding claim limitation immediately above—, where the first optical system and second optical system (i.e., “left fisheye lens” and “right fisheye lens”) are disposed in parallel with the first optical system as recited in para(s). [0060] below:
[0060] “In the stereoscopic camera illustrated in FIG. 21, the nodes of the left fisheye lens and the right fisheye lens are separated by a distance D<sub>0</sub> in a direction perpendicular to the optical axis, so the two linear aberration-corrected image planes (2135L, 2135R) obtained through image processing have a parallax corresponding to a distance D<sub>0</sub>, and when these are displayed on the screen of an HMD device corresponding to the left eye and the right eye, respectively, a user wearing this HMD device can feel a sense of depth as if they were actually in that place.”
).
Since each of Tanioka and Kweon disclose outputting a stereoscopic viewable image using at least a right-eye image and a left-eye image, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the presently filed invention to modify the system of Tanioka to incorporate a first optical system and a second optical system disposed in parallel with the first optical system in order to obtain a right-eye image and a left-eye image for use in outputting the stereoscopic viewable image as taught by Kweon above.
Regarding claim 12, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11. Since the remainder of claim 12 recites similar limitations to claim 2, the remainder of claim 12 is further disclosed by Tanioka for similar rationale and reasoning as claim 2 (see the analysis for claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 13, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11, wherein Kweon further teaches the first optical system is disposed on a right side when viewed from a back side of the image pickup apparatus (description, para(s). [0052], [0056], and [0060]—see citations in claim 11 above—, where the “right fisheye lens” of the “stereoscopic camera is a first optical system disposed on a “right” side when viewed from the back side of the image apparatus (e.g., viewed by a “right eye”)),
wherein the second optical system is disposed on a left side when viewed from the back side of the image pickup apparatus (description, para(s). [0052], [0056], and [0060], —see citations in claim 11 above—, where the “left fisheye lens” of the “stereoscopic camera is a second optical system disposed on a “left” side when viewed from the back side of the image apparatus (e.g., viewed by a “left eye”)),
wherein the first image is formed by the first optical system (description, para(s). [0052], [0056], and [0060]—see citations in claim 11 above—, where description, para(s). [0051], further recite(s):
[0051] “Meanwhile, various stereoscopic imaging technologies have been developed to enable viewing stereoscopic images on TVs, movies, and computer screens.
The common feature of these technologies is that, as shown in Fig. 16, two images are acquired using a stereo camera in which two lenses of the same specifications are aligned and facing the same direction, and then the two images are shown to the left eye and the right eye, respectively. Of course, even in this case, the horizontal distance between the two lenses in the stereoscopic camera is set to be similar to the distance between the two eyes.”
, where the image acquired by the “right eye lens” of the “stereo camera” (i.e., a ‘right-eye’ image) is at least a first image formed by the first optical system), and
wherein the second image is formed by the second optical system (description, para(s). [0052], [0056], [0060], and [0051]—see preceding claim limitation immediately above—, where the image acquired by the “left eye lens” of the “stereo camera” (i.e., a ‘left-eye’ image) is at least a second image formed by the second optical system).
Regarding claim 14, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11, wherein Tanioka further discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11 further comprising attitude detector configured to detect an attitude of the image pickup apparatus during capturing the first image and the second image and to outputting attitude data (para(s). [0035]—see citation in claim 7 limitation “…obtain attitude data of an image pickup apparatus…” above—, where para(s). [0072] further recite(s):
[0072] “…The prior embodiment uses the tilt detection sensor 800 in the orientation detection unit 50, while in the modification 2, the orientation of the device is specified using an acceleration sensor in the orientation detection unit 50. …”
, where the “orientation detection unit” is an attitude detector).
Regarding claim 15, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 14, wherein Tanioka further discloses the processor is configured to determine which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used, based on the attitude data (para(s). [0008] and [0041]—see citations in similar claim 7 limitation “wherein based on the attitude data…” above—, where the first mode is “laterally upright” and/or “the left or right eye is turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees”, the second mode is “laterally inverted”, and “orientation” is attitude data).
Regarding claim 16, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11, wherein Tanioka further discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11 further comprising a display unit configured to display which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used for image processing to the first image and the second image (para(s). [0041]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” above—, where the “display device” and/or “three-dimensional display” is at least a display unit configured to display which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used for image processing).
Regarding claim 17, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 11, wherein Tanioka further discloses at least one of the first image and the second image includes data indicating which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used for image processing to the first image and the second image (para(s). [0041]—see citation in claim 1 limitation “output one stereoscopic viewable image… in a first mode” above—, where the “orientation” of the first and second images (i.e., the left and right eye images) is data indicating which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used for image processing the first and second images).
Regarding claim 18, Tanioka in view of Kweon discloses the image pickup apparatus according to claim 17, wherein Tanioka further discloses based on the attitude data, the processor is configured to determine which of the first mode and the second mode is to be used for image processing to the first image and the second image (para(s). [0008] and [0041]—see citations in similar claim 7 limitation “wherein based on the attitude data…” above—, where the first mode is “laterally upright” and/or “the left or right eye is turned 90 degrees or 270 degrees”, the second mode is “laterally inverted”, and “orientation” is attitude data).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JULIA Z YAO whose telephone number is (571)272-2870. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (8:30AM - 5PM).
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571)270-3717. 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.
/J.Z.Y./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights