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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 08/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Received 08/07/2026
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 has/have been amended.
The 35 U.S.C § 103 rejection to claim(s) 1-9 and 11-18 have been fully considered in view of the amendments received on 08/07/2026 and are fully addressed in the prior art rejection below.
Response to Arguments
Received 08/07/2026
Regarding independent claim(s) 1 and 11:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 6: ¶ 4 to Page 9: ¶ 2), filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Wherein, the newly amended subject matter narrowed the scope of the claim, in a manner that further limits the subject matter of latency in relation to resolution. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Meitav et al. (US PGPUB No. 20220319014 A1), in view of Koike et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230078062 A1), and further in view of Phillips et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200107003 A1).
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 9: ¶ 3 to Page 10: ¶ 1), filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 11 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due claim 11's similarity to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
Regarding dependent claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20:
Applicant’s arguments (Remarks, Page 10: ¶ 1), filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 2-10 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive due the dependency upon claims 1 and 11 respectively. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the prior art as mentioned above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meitav et al., US PGPUB No. 20220319014 A1, hereinafter Meitav, in view of Koike et al., US PGPUB No. 20230078062 A1, hereinafter Koike, and further in view of Phillips et al., US PGPUB No. 20200107003 A1, hereinafter Phillips.
Regarding claim 1, Meitav discloses a video camera for displaying a video image onto a display (Meitav; a video camera for displaying a video image onto a display [¶ 0014-0015 and ¶ 0046]), the video camera comprising:
a lens for transmitting optical data to an image sensor (Meitav; the video camera [as addressed above] comprising a lens for transmitting optical data to an image sensor [¶ 0045-0046]; moreover, one or more lenses [¶ 0048-0049]);
data processing hardware in communication with the image sensor (Meitav; the video camera [as addressed above] comprising data processing hardware in communication with the image sensor [¶ 0044, ¶ 0046-0047, and ¶ 0050]); and
memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware (Meitav; the video camera [as addressed above] comprising memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware [¶ 0149-0150]), the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (Meitav; the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations [¶ 0149-0150]; moreover, executable instructions [¶ 0052 and ¶ 0054]) comprising:
processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed rate (Meitav; performing operations [as addressed above] comprising processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed frame-rates [¶ 0108-0110]; additionally, different frame-rates [¶ 0073], as illustrated within Fig. 4), the mixed rate including a low-rate and a high-rate so as to generate a low-rate image and a high-rate image (Meitav; the mixed frame-rate [as addressed above] includes a low rate and a high rate so as to generate a low frame-rate image and a high frame-rate image [¶ 0110-0112]; moreover, faster speed at higher resolution and/or frame rate and slower speed at a lower resolution and/or frame rate [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0062-0063]; additionally, higher and/or lower importance [¶ 0059-0060]), wherein the low-rate image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-rate image (Meitav; the low frame-rate image has an image resolution implicitly smaller than an image resolution of the high frame-rate image [¶ 0007, ¶ 0056, and ¶ 0058]; wherein, a video frame-rate is proportional to resolution of captured camera or video data [¶ 0055]);
processing a motion in the video image capture by the video camera (Meitav; performing operations [as addressed above] comprising processing a motion/change in the video image capture by the video camera [¶ 0110-0111]; moreover, FOV of the camera based on speeds of motion [¶ 0058]); and
generating a composite image when a motion is detected (Meitav; generating an composite image (i.e. stitching or combining different regions or segments into a single image) when a motion/change is detected [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0079-0081]; moreover, combined or stitched together to generate full frames at a desired framerate and/or overall image quality for a video file [¶ 0088]; and moreover, motion dentification and region generation [¶ 0065-0067], in relation with determining a frame rate for each region [¶ 0074-0076]), wherein the composite image includes a cropped portion of low-rate image of a first area of the video image (Meitav; the composite image [as addressed above] includes a cropped portion of low frame-rate image of a 1st area of the video image [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0073-0074]; moreover, updating regions [¶ 0081-0082], as illustrated within Fig. 6), the first area having motion and a portion of the high-rate image of a second area of the video image (Meitav; the 1st area having motion and a portion of the high frame-rate image of a 2nd area of the video image [¶ 0080-0082 and ¶ 0110-0111]; moreover, slow, medium, or fast speed regions [¶ 0058, ¶ 0074, and ¶ 0076]), the second area of the video image being still (Meitav; the 2nd area of the video image being relatively still (given stationary or slow/low motion) [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0080-0082]; additionally, static/stationary regions may be generated [¶ 0104]).
Meitav fails to disclose processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed latency, the mixed latency including a low-latency and a high-latency so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency image, wherein the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image; and
wherein a difference in image data between consecutively collected image frames in the second area is below a predetermined threshold, and wherein the cropped portion of the low-latency image of the first area has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the portion of the high-latency image of the second area.
However, Koike teaches the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (Koike; the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image [¶ 0050-0051 and ¶ 0054]; moreover, switching delay [¶ 0007 and ¶ 0069]; additionally, video encoding for streaming [¶ 0038-0039] in relation with target quality [¶ 0046-0048]).
Meitav and Koike are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a mixed resolution and/or framerate effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav, to incorporate the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (as taught by Koike), in order to provide optimized/high quality imaging with limited bandwidth (Koike; [¶ 0005-0007, ¶ 0009, and ¶ 0016-0017]).
Meitav as modified by Koike fails to disclose processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed latency, the mixed latency including a low-latency and a high-latency so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency image; and
wherein a difference in image data between consecutively collected image frames in the second area is below a predetermined threshold, and wherein the cropped portion of the low-latency image of the first area has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the portion of the high-latency image of the second area.
However, Phillips teaches processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed latency (Phillips; processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed latency [¶ 0078-0080], as illustrated within Figs. 3 and 6; wherein, mixed latency corresponds to managed bandwidth [¶ 0068-0069] and phase encoding (PE) streams having various Quantization Parameters (QPs) [¶ 0079], as illustrated within Fig. 3; in other words, the size of data and the bandwidth to process data correlating to factor of time (e.g. the larger the data the longer it takes to process said data); moreover, PE, streaming, and managed bandwidth [¶ 0067], as illustrated within Fig. 1), the mixed latency including a low-latency and a high-latency so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency image (Phillips; the mixed latency [as addressed above] including a low-latency and a high-latency so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency image [¶ 0079-0082], as illustrated within Fig. 6; moreover, mixed quality video tiles [¶ 0185], as illustrated within Fig. 31B, and bitrates [¶ 0171-0172], as illustrated within Fig. 26), wherein the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (Phillips; the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image [¶ 0080-0082 and ¶ 0171-0172]; in other words, high resolution involves a larger data size than a lower resolution and thus requires more time to process); and
generating a composite image when a motion is detected (Phillips; generating a composite/stitch image when a motion is detected [¶ 0069], as illustrated within Fig. 2; moreover, stitching tiles from different quantization parameters (QPs) [¶ 0115-0117]; wherein, QPs are associated with levels of quality [¶ 0079-0081] in relation with motion [¶ 0082]; additionally, viewpoint movements [¶ 0133], and frame is partitioned into tiles [¶ 0101]), wherein the composite image includes a cropped portion of low-latency image of a first area of the video image (Phillips; the composite/stitch image [as addressed above] includes a cropped/segmented portion of low-latency image of a 1st area of the video image [¶ 0100, ¶ 0103, and ¶ 0121]), the first area having motion and a portion of the high-latency image of a second area of the video image (Phillips; the 1st area having motion and a portion of the high-latency image of a 2nd area of the video image [¶ 0100, ¶ 0103, and ¶ 0121]; wherein, tile quality modification is triggered when upgrading or downgrading [¶ 0137 and ¶ 0142]; additionally, refreshing of frames [¶ 0153-0154]), the second area of the video image being still (Phillips; the 2nd area of the video image being still [¶ 0137 and ¶ 0142]; additionally, paused frame [¶ 0184-0186]), wherein a difference in image data between consecutively collected image frames in the second area is below a predetermined threshold (Phillips; a difference in image data between consecutively collected image frames (i.e. image stream) in the 2nd area is implicitly below a predetermined threshold (given quality scoring) [¶ 0159-0161] and/or determination of refreshing [¶ 0103 and ¶ 0111-0112]), and wherein the cropped portion of the low-latency image of the first area has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the portion of the high-latency image of the second area (Phillips; the cropped/segmented portion of the low-latency image of the 1st area has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the portion of the high-latency image of the 2nd area [¶ 0178 and ¶ 0185], as illustrated within Fig. 31B; wherein, resolution levels are linked to bitrates [¶ 0066 and ¶ 0171], as illustrated within Fig. 26).
Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a mixed resolution and/or framerate effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike, to incorporate processing the video image captured by the image sensor to generate a plurality of image frames at a mixed latency, the mixed latency including a low-latency and a high-latency so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency image, wherein the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image; and generating a composite image when a motion is detected, wherein the composite image includes a cropped portion of low-latency image of a first area of the video image, the first area having motion and a portion of the high-latency image of a second area of the video image, the second area of the video image being still, wherein a difference in image data between consecutively collected image frames in the second area is below a predetermined threshold, and wherein the cropped portion of the low-latency image of the first area has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the portion of the high-latency image of the second area (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein when the first area of the video image is still, the composite image is updated by replacing the cropped portion of the low-latency image of the first area of the video image with a high-latency image of the first area of the video that is still (Phillips; the composite image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is updated by replacing the cropped/segmented portion of the low-latency image of the 1st area of the video image with a high-latency image of the 1st area of the video that is still when the 1st area of the video image is still [¶ 0103-0104 and ¶ 0111-0112]; wherein, bandwidth conditions and tile data sizes corresponds to high or low latency [¶ 0171-0172] and involves areas of no motion (i.e. stillness) and motion [¶ 0082]; additionally, paused frame [¶ 0184-0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate when the first area of the video image is still, the composite image is updated by replacing the cropped portion of the low-latency image of the first area of the video image with a high-latency image of the first area of the video that is still (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 3, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein when the first area of the video image is still, the composite image is updated an entirety of the high-latency image (Phillips; the composite image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is updated (i.e. refresh) an entirety of the high-latency image when the 1st area of the video image is still (i.e. no motion) [¶ 0103-0104 and ¶ 0111-0112]; wherein, bandwidth conditions and tile data sizes corresponds to high or low latency [¶ 0171-0172] and involves areas of no motion (i.e. stillness) and motion [¶ 0082]; additionally, a pause video frame update [¶ 0005 and ¶ 0185-0186], as illustrated within Fig. 32B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate when the first area of the video image is still, the composite image is updated an entirety of the high-latency image (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 4, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein the low-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the high-latency image (Phillips; the low-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the high-latency image [¶ 0079-0081 and ¶ 0111-0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate wherein the low-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the high-latency image (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein the motion is determined by comparing a pair of consecutive image frames (Meitav; the motion is determined by comparing a pair of consecutive image frames [¶ 0063-0064]; moreover, motion identification and region generation [¶ 0065-0067 and ¶ 0072]; wherein, an anchor frame is used in combination with an earlier captured anchor frame or with an earlier constructed frame to re-perform motion identification [¶ 0070]).
Regarding claim 7, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate a mid-latency image (Phillips; the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate a mid-latency image [¶ 0079-0081 and ¶ 0111-0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate wherein the low-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the high-latency image (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 8, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein the mixed latency includes a mid-latency (Phillips; the mixed latency includes a mid-latency [¶ 0079-0081], as illustrated within Fig. 6; moreover, one or more different QPs [¶ 0121], as illustrated within Fig. 14), the data processing hardware generating a mid-latency image (Phillips; the data processing hardware [¶ 0066 and ¶ 0068-0069] generating a mid-latency image [¶ 0079-0081]), the mid-latency image having an image resolution greater than the low-latency image and less than the high-latency image (Phillips; the mid-latency image [as addressed above] having an image resolution greater than the low-latency image and less than the high-latency image [¶ 0082-0083 and ¶ 0121], as illustrated within Fig. 14; moreover, bandwidth conditions [¶ 0111 and ¶ 0142]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate wherein the mixed latency includes a mid-latency, the data processing hardware generating a mid-latency image, the mid-latency image having an image resolution greater than the low-latency image and less than the high-latency image (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 9, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 8, wherein the motion is one of a first movement value and a second movement value (Meitav; the motion is one of a 1st movement value and a 2nd movement value [¶ 0110-0111]), the first movement value having more motion relative to the second movement value (Meitav; the 1st movement value having more motion relative to the 2nd movement value [¶ 0063-0064, ¶ 0074, and ¶ 0076]; moreover, motion identification and region generation [¶ 0065-0067 and ¶ 0071-0072]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 11. Although, claim 11 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter; however, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Meitav discloses transmitting the high-rate image when the change is within a first predetermined range and transmitting the low-rate image when the change is within a second predetermined range (Meitav; transmitting (to a display) the high frame-rate image when the change is within a 1st predetermined range (i.e. degree/amount of motion) and transmitting (to the display) the low frame-rate image when the change is within a 2nd predetermined range (i.e. another degree/amount of motion) [¶ 0108-0110]; moreover, degrees of motion [¶ 0062-0063] associated with motion identification [¶ 0066-0068] and were capture is a predetermined amount of time and/or in response to sensor data [¶ 0069 and ¶ 0071]; additionally, frames are captured inversely proportional to a frame rate [¶ 0065]), the first predetermined range having less change than the second predetermined range (Meitav; the 1st predetermined range (i.e. degree/amount of motion) having less change than the 2nd predetermined range (i.e. another degree/amount of motion) [¶ 0108-0110]; for example, low motion/change having less motion/change than the high motion/change).
Meitav as modified by Koike fails to disclose transmitting the high-latency image when the change is within a first predetermined range and transmitting the low-latency image when the change is within a second predetermined range; and
wherein the first predetermined range is a still image and the second predetermined range is any detected change.
However, Phillips teaches transmitting the high-latency image when the change is within a first predetermined range and transmitting the low-latency image when the change is within a second predetermined range (Phillips; transmitting (i.e. streaming) [¶ 0063 and ¶ 0173] the high-latency image when the change is within a 1st predetermined range (i.e. phase-encoded stream) and transmitting (i.e. streaming) the low-latency image when the change is within a 2nd predetermined range (i.e. another phase-encoded stream) [¶ 0099-0100, ¶ 0103, and ¶ 0110-0112]; moreover, a video source is filtered into a plurality of streams with different qualities and/or bitrates corresponding to a variable range [¶ 0079-0081], as illustrated within Fig. 6; wherein, if a QP of 10 is targeted in a source encoding scheme, it is possible that a low bitrate may be seen in areas of no motion (e.g., resulting in 4 Mbs) [¶ 0082-0083]; wherein, in areas of high motion, it is possible that the bitrate could shoot up to 200 Mbs [id.]), the first predetermined range having less change than the second predetermined range (Phillips; the 1st predetermined range (i.e. phase-encoded stream) having less change than the 2nd predetermined range (i.e. another phase-encoded stream) [¶ 0082 and ¶ 0085]; wherein, facilitating a gradual refreshing of frames [¶ 0103-0104]; moreover, a set of tiled streams encoded at different bitrates [¶ 0086 and ¶ 0171-0172]), wherein the first predetermined range is a still image and the second predetermined range is any detected change (Phillips; the 1st predetermined range (i.e. phase-encoded stream) is a still image and the 2nd predetermined range (i.e. another phase-encoded stream) is any detected change [¶ 0142]; wherein, determining a refresh [¶ 0152-0153]; moreover, a determination between a period and a phase (e.g. Mod(period ≠ phase or Mod(period = phase) indicates tiles that satisfies triggering a refresh or not in relation with movement [¶ 0099-0100 and ¶ 0103-0104]; additional, PE implementation [¶ 0110-0112]).
Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a mixed resolution and/or framerate effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike, to incorporate transmitting the high-latency image when the change is within a first predetermined range and transmitting the low-latency image when the change is within a second predetermined range, the first predetermined range having less change than the second predetermined range, wherein the first predetermined range is a still image and the second predetermined range is any detected change (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 12, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 11, wherein the low-latency image is generated by processing a first predetermined number of image frames (Phillips; the low-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated by processing a 1st predetermined number of image frames [¶ 0079-0081], as illustrated within Fig. 6; moreover, partitioned frame [¶ 0075-0076] associated with multiplexing [¶ 0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate wherein the low-latency image is generated by processing a first predetermined number of image frames (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 12, wherein the high-latency image is generated by processing a second predetermined number of image frames (Phillips; the high-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated by processing a 2nd predetermined number of image frames [¶ 0079-0081], as illustrated within Fig. 6), the second predetermined number of image frames greater than the first predetermined number of image frames (Phillips; the 2nd predetermined number of image frames greater than the 1st predetermined number of image frames [¶ 0079-0081], as illustrated within Fig. 6; moreover, different streams [¶ 0066-0067 and ¶ 0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate wherein the high-latency image is generated by processing a second predetermined number of image frames (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 13, wherein the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the low-latency image (Phillips; the high-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the low-latency image [¶ 0079-0081 and ¶ 0111-0112]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate wherein the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the low-latency image (as taught by Phillips), in order to provide an improved immersive environment while reducing resource consumption (Phillips; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 15, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 11, wherein the change is a motion is determined by comparing a pair of consecutive image frames (Meitav; the change [as addressed within parent claim(s)] is a motion is determined by comparing a pair of consecutive image frames [¶ 0063-0064]; moreover, motion identification and region generation [¶ 0065-0067 and ¶ 0072]; wherein, an anchor frame is used in combination with an earlier captured anchor frame or with an earlier constructed frame to re-perform motion identification [¶ 0070]).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 5, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 5 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 5 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Claim(s) 6 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rich et al., US PGPUB No. 20070038088 A1, hereinafter Rich.
Regarding claim 6, Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips further discloses the video camera of claim 1, further including a motion sensor configured to detect a movement of a tool (Meitav; a motion sensor configured to detect a movement of a tool [¶ 0096-0097 and ¶ 0105-0106]), wherein the motion is the movement of the tool (Meitav; wherein the motion/change is the movement of the tool [¶ 0045 and ¶ 0133]).
Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips fails to disclose to detect a movement of a tool, wherein the motion is the movement of the tool.
However, Rich teaches a motion sensor configured to detect a movement of a tool (Rich; a motion sensor configured to detect a movement of a tool (i.e. medical probe) [¶ 0011-0013]; moreover, image resolution in the motion mode is in relation with a frame rate [¶ 0018-0019] which includes a medical probe (i.e. tool) [¶ 0022-0024]), wherein the motion is the movement of the tool (Rich; the motion is the movement of the tool (i.e. medical probe) [¶ 0012-0014]).
Meitav in view of Koike and Phillips and Rich are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data to a user, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a mixed resolution and/or framerate effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Meitav as modified by Koike and Phillips, to incorporate a motion sensor configured to detect a movement of a tool, wherein the motion is the movement of the tool (as taught by Rich), in order to provide an improved image quality by reducing or eliminating disorientation due to relative motion between two subjects (Rich; [¶ 0003-0006]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 6, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 6 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 6 regarding the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 8, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 8 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 8 regarding the rejection of claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 10, 19, and 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(video content as tiles in relation with latency, resolution quality, and frames)
Dvir et al (US PGPUB No. 20200322696 A1);
Jang et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200145636 A1); and
Park et al. (US PGPUB No. 20260212460 A1).
(regarding moving image of resolutions and frame rates)
Kobayashi et al. (US PGPUB No. 20100157090 A1);
Otsuka (US PGPUB No. 20220377349 A1);
Phillips et al. (US PGPUB No. 20200344457 A1); and
Mann et al. (US PGPUB No. 20140059166 A1).
(regarding image quality region in a video)
Wang (US PGPUB No. 20140016708 A1); and
Urata et al. (US PGPUB No. 20230099593 A1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
