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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 2/4/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment. However, after further search and consideration a new ground of rejection is entered in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017-0154455) and in light of Applicant’s newly amended claims.
Regarding pages 6-7 of Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 2/4/26, the remarks and amendment have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn based upon Applicant’s amendment. However, after further search and consideration a new ground of rejection is entered in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017-0154455) and in light of Applicant’s newly amended claims whereby Examiner has provided additional citation to the prior art disclosures to rejected said amended claims (See rejection contained herein). Examiner respectfully submits CHOU teaches at least ‘a snapshot operation initiated by a user’ whereby CHOU disclosures ‘capturing a moment’ during video conferencing (See CHOU [0021]). Accordingly, the rejections stand for the independent as well as dependent claims.
FINAL REJECTION
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.
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 1-5, 8, 11-15, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOU et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0060660) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017-0154455).
As per Claim 1 CHOU discloses An image display method, comprising (Figs. 2A-B, 6A [Abstract]):
displaying a first image window, wherein the first image window displays a first picture, and the first picture is a partial frame of a panoramic shot image (Figs. 1-2, 6A [Abstract] partial = portion; meeting room B is captured panorama displayed in screen 130a [0021-0022] [0028-0029]; 130a first image window displaying boy/girl in left most bottom pane [0034-0037]); displaying a second image window, wherein the second image window displays a second picture, the second picture is a part or a whole picture of the panoramic shot image (Figs. 1-2, 6A [Abstract] partial = portion; meeting room B is captured panorama displayed in screen 130a [0021-0022] [0028-0029]; 130a second image window displaying four participants in the upper pane above first portion [0034-0037]), and wherein there is content difference between the second picture and the first picture (Figs. 1-2, 6A [Abstract] displayed in screen 130a – second picture of four participants different than first picture of two participants [0021-0022] [0028-0029]; 130a second image window displaying four participants in the upper pane above first portion [0034-0037]) and in response to a snapshot operation initiated by a user (Figs. 1-2 capture via user action [0021-0022] [0028-0029] [0034-0037]
CHOU does not disclose but PARK discloses recording the first picture and /or the second picture to generate a video file (Figs. 1-2, 18 [0094-0098] module 1891 [0264])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include recording the first picture and /or the second picture to generate a video file as taught by PARK into the system of CHOU because of the benefit taught by PARK to add the additional feature to CHOU in the same field of endeavor to record/store captured data as n CHOU to a file for archival to improve system version control.
As per Claim 2 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding area of the second picture includes a corresponding area of the first picture on the panoramic shot image (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E [Abstract] displayed in screen 130a – second picture of four participants different than first picture of two participants in left most pane – corresponding areas are shared environment of the captured area in meeting room B – see Fig. 6A screen 103a [0021-0022] [0028-0029] [0034-0037]).
As per Claim 3 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the second picture is a whole frame of the panoramic shot image (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E [Abstract] displayed in screen 130a – second picture of four participants entirety of the panorama from conference room B – see Fig. 6A screen 103a [0021-0022] [0028-0029] [0034-0037]).
As per Claim 4 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the corresponding area of the first picture is marked in the second picture (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E [Abstract] displayed in screen 130a – second picture of four participants entirety – in the first picture marking two of the participants from the panorama image and of the four participants in the second picture of Fig. 6A screen 103a [0021-0022] [0028-0029] [0034-0037]).
As per Claim 5 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the second image window is smaller than the first image window, and the second image window is displayed floatingly above the first image window (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E [Abstract] displayed in screen 130a – second picture of four participants is smaller in width than first picture in left pane – second picture is above first picture of Fig. 6A screen 103a [0021-0022] [0028-0029] [0034-0037]).
As per Claim 8 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein the second picture is positionally associated with the first picture (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E [Abstract] displayed in screen 130a – second picture associated above first picture of Fig. 6A screen 103a [0021-0022] [0028-0029] [0034-0037]).
As per Claim 11 CHOU discloses An electronic device, comprising (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E): a memory for storing computer program instructions, a processor for executing computer program instructions, and a display device (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E communication devices with display screens 103a,b = computers [0022-0023]), wherein when the computer program instructions are executed by the processor, triggering the display device to execute the steps comprising (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E communication devices with display screens 103a,b = computers [0022-0023]): displaying a first image window, wherein the first image window displays a first picture, and the first picture is a partial frame of a panoramic shot image (See said analysis for Claim 1); displaying a second image window, wherein the second image window is configured to display a second picture, the second picture is a part or a whole picture of the panoramic shot image (See said analysis for Claim 1), and wherein there is content difference between the second picture and the first picture (See said analysis for Claim 1) and in response to a snapshot operation initiated by a user (See said analysis for Claim 1)
CHOU does not disclose but PARK discloses recording the first picture and /or the second picture to generate a video file (See said analysis for Claim 1)
As per Claim 12 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the corresponding area of the second picture includes a corresponding area of the first picture on the panoramic shot image (See said analysis for Claim 2).
As per Claim 13 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the second picture is a whole frame of the panoramic shot image (See said analysis for Claim 3).
As per Claim 14 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 12, wherein the corresponding area of the first picture is marked in the second picture (See said analysis for Claim 4).
As per Claim 15 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein the second image window is smaller than the first image window, and the second image window is displayed floatingly above the first image window (See said analysis for Claim 5).
As per Claim 20 CHOU discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores one or more computer programs, wherein when the one or more computer programs are executed by one or more processors (Figs. 1-2, 6A-E communication devices with display screens 103a,b = computers [0022-0023]), cause the one or more processors to perform the steps comprising (See said analysis for Claim 11): displaying a first image window, wherein the first image window displays a first picture, and the first picture is a partial frame of a panoramic shot image (See said analysis for Claim 1); and displaying a second image window, wherein the second image window displays a second picture, the second picture is a part or a whole picture of the panoramic shot image (See said analysis for Claim 1), and wherein there is content difference between the second picture and the first picture (See said analysis for Claim 1) and in response to a snapshot operation initiated by a user (See said analysis for Claim 1)
CHOU does not disclose but PARK discloses recording the first picture and /or the second picture to generate a video file (See said analysis for Claim 1).
Claims 6-7, 9, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOU et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0060660) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017-0154455), as applied in Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, 20, and further in view of KIM et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015-0068639).
As per Claim 6 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 5, wherein
CHOU and PARK do not disclose but KIM discloses the first image window is a full-screen display window (Figs. 2, 7A-B display screen 100 is full screen [0062-0063]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first image window is a full-screen display window as taught by KIM into the system of CHOU and PARK because of the benefit taught by KIM to include the ability to display full-screen mode whereby said systems represent multiple pane-sized representations of segments and would benefit from the additional presentation mode of full-screen to expand upon user selection capabilities.
As per Claim 7 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprises:
CHOU and PARK do not disclose but KIM discloses transforming image content of the first image according to a user's perspective transformation operation (Figs. 1-7 user operation to change the display transform perspective [0050-0052, 0054] [0090]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 6 applies equally to Claim 7).
As per Claim 9 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein
CHOU and PARK do not disclose but KIM discloses a viewing angle corresponding to the second picture and a viewing angle corresponding to the first picture are set to opposite viewing directions (Figs. 1-9 [Abstract] [0009, 0011] opposing viewing angles opposite directions [0022-0024] ]0056-0057] [0126]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 6 applies equally to Claim 9).
As per Claim 16 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 15, wherein CHOU and PARK do not disclose but KIM discloses the first image window is a full-screen display window (See said analysis for Claim 6).
As per Claim 17 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein CHOU and PARK do not disclose but KIM discloses image content of the first picture is transformed according to a user's perspective transformation operation (See said analysis for Claim 7).
As per Claim 18 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein CHOU and PARK do not disclose but KIM discloses a viewing angle corresponding to the second picture and a viewing angle corresponding to the first picture are set to opposite viewing directions (See said analysis for Claim 9).
Claims 10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CHOU et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0060660) in view of PARK et al. (US Pub. No.: 2017-0154455), as applied in Claims 1-5, 8, 11-15, 20, and further in view of YE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2015-0341567).
As per Claim 10 CHOU discloses The method according to claim 1, wherein
CHOU and PARK do not disclose but YE discloses a snapshot is taken on content of the first picture after a user performs a shooting operation (in at least Fig. 8 second photograph taken of the processed first image and after the first shooting-processing as the operation to follow [Abstract] [0030-0031, 0034, 0044] [0048] [0085]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a snapshot is taken on content of the first picture after a user performs a shooting operation as taught by YE into the system of CHOU and PARK because of the benefit taught by YE to include multiple subject-environment capture to improve upon imaging techniques with multiple subjects of interest and would benefit said systems which are directed towards representing and processing multiple regions of interest and would benefit from the ability to apply improved techniques for multi-imaging.
As per Claim 19 CHOU discloses The electronic device according to claim 11, wherein CHOU and PARK do not disclose but YE discloses a snapshot is taken on content of the first picture after a user performs a shooting operation (See said analysis for Claim 10).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is (571) 270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 7:30-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481