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 .
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 in parent Application No. 17/742,464, filed on 05/12/2022.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shikata et al (US Pub 2021/0227201 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Shikata et al teaches an image processing system comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions “( see Fig. 7; Paragraph [0100] The CPU 701 is interconnected to the ROM 702, the RAM 703, an operation unit I/F 705, …..“ ); and
one or more processors “( see Fig. 7; Paragraph [0100] The CPU 701 …)executing the instructions to:
control an image to be displayed on a display device disposed within or around a
predetermined region,
generate a virtual viewpoint image based on a three-dimensional model of an object (see Paragraph [0106] “ As a method of generating a virtual viewpoint image, for example, model-based rendering (MODEL-BASED RENDERING: MBR) may be employed. MBR is a method of generating a virtual viewpoint image using a three-dimensional model generated based on a plurality of captured images obtained by capturing an object from a plurality of directions…..” )
which is generated based on a plurality of images which is obtained from a plurality of image
capturing devices (See Paragraph [0069] The plurality of image capturing apparatuses 100-X (Fig. 2) are, for example, digital cameras,…”) disposed around the predetermined region while the image is being displayed (see Claim 1 on page 16; “… the plurality of image capturing apparatuses are installed, and information for identifying an image capturing apparatus directed to a predetermined region, wherein the plurality of image capturing apparatuses are configured to obtain captured images to generate a virtual view point image.. and cause a display device to display the generated image.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Shikata et al teaches the image processing system wherein the one or more
processors further execute the instructions to, in a case where a plurality of objects is present in
the predetermined region, control the image to be displayed for each of the plurality of objects. ( see Claim 2 on page 16, “… wherein the plurality of image capturing apparatuses are configured to extract regions of objects included in the captured images, configured to generate images of the objects based on the extracted regions of the objects, and configured to transmit the generated images of objects.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Shikata et al teaches the image processing system wherein the one or more
processors further execute the instructions to control an information specifying a name of an
object (see Fig. 6A, Paragraph 0083 for “.. a soccer ball 620, and a soccer goal 630 in a soccer field of a stadium 210…”) of the plurality of objects to be displayed for each of the plurality of the images (see Paragraph 0084 for “ … an image of an object such as a ball (620 in Fig. 6A) or a goal (630 in Fig. 6A), …”).
Regarding Claim 15, Shikata et al teaches the image processing system wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to, in a case where a plurality of objects is present in the predetermined region object (see Fig. 6A, Paragraph 0083 for “.. a soccer ball 620, and a soccer goal 630 in a soccer field of a stadium 210…”), control single images of the plurality of images to be displayed for the plurality of objects object (see Fig. 6C, Paragraph 0083 for “.. a soccer goal 630…”).
Regarding Claim 16, Shikata et al teaches the image processing system wherein the plurality of images is configured to assist a performance of the object (Figs. 6, 15).
Regarding Claim 17, Shikata et al teaches the image processing system wherein the plurality of images is configured for the object to direct a look (Figs. 6, 15).
Regarding Claim 18, the method Claim 18 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 19, the CRM Claim 19 is rejected for same reason as the apparatus Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims (the CRM non-transitory computer readable storage medium is shown in Paragraph 0221).
Conclusion
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 pm.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624