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 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 7 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the mid-latency image”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner notices the manner in which the claim(s) is/are presented, and for purposes for examination will interpret "… the mid-latency …" to be "… a mid-latency”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and further in view of Massal et al., US PGPUB No. 20230177649 A1, hereinafter Massal.
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 latency (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 latency [¶ 0108-0110]; additionally, different frame rates [¶ 0073], as illustrated within Fig. 4), the mixed latency including a low-latency and a high-latency so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency image (Meitav; the mixed latency [as addressed above] includes a low-latency (i.e. high (or low) motion associated with high (or low) frame rate) and a high-latency (i.e. low (or high) motion associated with low (or high) frame rate) so as to generate a low-latency image and a high-latency 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-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (Meitav; the low-latency image has an image resolution implicitly smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (given a full or maximum resolution) [¶ 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-latency image of a first area of the video image (Meitav; the composite image [as addressed above] includes a cropped portion of low-latency 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-latency image of a second area of the video image (Meitav; the 1st area having motion and a portion of the high-latency 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 explicitly disclose the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image.
However, Massal teaches the low-latency image has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (Massal; the low-latency image (corresponding to one resolution associated with one frame rate) has an image resolution smaller than an image resolution of the high-latency image (corresponding to another resolution with another frame rate) [¶ 0045-0046]; wherein, resolutions is a linked to frames per second (FPS) / frame rates [¶ 0054]; additionally, one or more resolutions in relation with a blended image [¶ 0057-0058]; wherein, the motion vector associated with a blended image involves temporal calculation [¶ 0058-0060]; and wherein, blending involves weights to be applied to locations/segments of an image [¶ 0071-0072 and ¶ 0076]; additionally, motion vector difference information in relation with frame rendering [¶ 0062-0063 and ¶ 0066-0067]).
Meitav and Massal 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 Massal), in order to provide an improved image quality for systems with limited resources (Massal; [¶ 0002 and ¶ 0045]).
Regarding claim 2, Meitav in view of Massal 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 (Meitav; the composite image [as addressed within the parent claim] is updated by replacing the cropped 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 [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0081-0082]).
Regarding claim 3, Meitav in view of Massal 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 (Meitav; the composite image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is updated an entirety of the high-latency image when the 1st area of the video image is still (i.e. static or stationary) [¶ 0104]).
Regarding claim 4, Meitav in view of Massal 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 (Meitav; 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 [¶ 0058-0059]).
Regarding claim 5, Meitav in view of Massal 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 Massal 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 the mid-latency image (Meitav; the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the mid-latency image [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0109-0111]; wherein, the image can be divided into a low, medium, and high motion ROIs [¶ 0062-0064, ¶ 0071, and ¶ 0074] associated with framerates [¶ 0076]).
Regarding claim 8, Meitav in view of Massal further discloses the video camera of claim 1, wherein the mixed latency includes a mid-latency (Meitav; the mixed latency includes a mid-latency [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0109-0111]; wherein, the image can be divided into a low, medium, and high motion ROIs [¶ 0062-0064, ¶ 0071, and ¶ 0074]), the data processing hardware generating a mid-latency image (Meitav; the data processing hardware generating a mid-latency image [¶ 0058-0059 and ¶ 0109-0111]), the mid-latency image having an image resolution greater than the low-latency image and less than the high-latency image (Meitav; the mid-latency image having an image resolution greater than the low-latency image and less than the high-latency image [¶ 0110-0112]; moreover, the different regions are identified by the region generator as slow, medium, or fast speed regions or segments can have different associated frame rates for video capture and/or different resolutions [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Meitav in view of Massal 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 10, Meitav in view of Massal further discloses the video camera of claim 9, wherein the composite image further includes a cropped portion of the mid-latency image of a third area of the video image having the second movement value and the cropped portion of the high-latency image of the second area has the first movement value (Meitav; the composite image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] further includes a cropped portion of the mid-latency image of a 3rd area of the video image having the 2nd movement value and the cropped portion of the high-latency image of the 2nd area has the 1st movement value [¶ 0058]; wherein, new regions can be captured at a frame rate and an image resolution to obtain new imagery [¶ 0081-0082]; wherein, the medium motion region may be assigned a medium motion frame rate [¶ 0074-0076]).
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-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 (Meitav; transmitting (to a display) the high-latency image when the change is within a 1st predetermined range (i.e. degree/amount of motion) and transmitting (to the display) the low-latency 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).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Regarding claim 12, Meitav in view of Massal further discloses the video camera of claim 11, wherein the low-latency image is generated by processing a first predetermined number of image frames (Meitav; the low-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated by processing an implicit 1st predetermined number of image frames (given desired frame rates) [¶ 0108 and ¶ 0110-0111]; wherein consecutive frames are used to determine motion [¶ 0058, ¶ 0062-0063, and ¶ 0074]; moreover, constructing multiple (full) frames using multiple partial frames and multiple frames [¶ 0119]).
Regarding claim 13, Meitav in view of Massal further discloses the video camera of claim 12, wherein the high-latency image is generated by processing a second predetermined number of image frames (Meitav; the high-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated by processing an implicit 2nd predetermined number of image frames (given desired frame rates) [¶ 0108 and ¶ 0110-0111]; wherein consecutive frames are used to determine motion [¶ 0058, ¶ 0062-0063, and ¶ 0074]; moreover, constructing multiple (full) frames using multiple partial frames and multiple frames [¶ 0119]), the second predetermined number of image frames greater than the first predetermined number of image frames (Meitav; the implicit 2nd predetermined number of image frames (given desired frame rates) greater than the implicit 1st predetermined number of image frames (given desired frame rates) [¶ 0108 and ¶ 0110-0112]; wherein, 60 FPR are greater than the 24 (or 15) FPS [¶ 0065-0066 and ¶ 0074]).
Regarding claim 14, Meitav in view of Massal 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 (Meitav; 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 [¶ 0058-0059]; moreover, a FOV includes a low, medium, high motion areas [¶ 0063-0064], such that the FOV has high and low relative motion [¶ 0066-0068]).
Regarding claim 15, Meitav in view of Massal 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 Massal 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 Massal 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] [¶ 0045 and ¶ 0133]), wherein the motion is the movement of the tool (Meitav; wherein the motion/change is the movement of the tool).
Meitav in view of Massal 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 Massal 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 Massal, 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.
Regarding claim 19, Meitav in view of Massal and Rich further discloses the video camera of claim 18, wherein the data processing hardware transmits the mid-latency image when the motion is a third predetermined range (Meitav; the data processing hardware [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] transmits (to a display) the mid-latency image when the motion is a 3rd predetermined range (i.e. a further 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 third predetermined range has less motion than the second predetermined range and more motion than the first predetermined range (Meitav; the 3rd predetermined range (i.e. a further degree/amount of motion) [as addressed above] has less motion than the second predetermined range and more motion than the first predetermined range [¶ 0108-0110]; for example, middle motion has less motion/change than a low motion and more motion/change than a high motion).
Regarding claim 20, Meitav in view of Massal and Rich further discloses the video camera of claim 19, wherein the mid-latency image is generated using at least one image used to generate the low-latency image and the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the mid-latency image (Meitav; the mid-latency image [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] is generated using at least one image used to generate the low-latency image and the high-latency image is generated by processing at least one of the image frames used to generate the mid-latency image [¶ 0058 and ¶ 0109-0111]; wherein, the image can be divided into a low, medium, and high motion ROIs [¶ 0062-0064, ¶ 0071, and ¶ 0074] associated with framerates [¶ 0076]).
Conclusion
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