DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 07/16/2025, with respect to the partial 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The partial 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The non-statutory double patenting rejection still holds in view of the amendments. Patent ‘893 claims in claim 4 “determining a plurality of first guides associated with the first captured image; displaying the first guides on a display based on the determined displacement distance; displaying a real-time image of the scene on the display; determining a plurality of second guides associated with the real-time image; displaying the first and second guide guides on the display for guiding selection of a position of the image capture device to capture a second image of the scene”.
Applicant argues against the 112 rejection because the claim states “at least one pixel” and the applicant is interpreting the claim to need plural pixels. However, the claim is also interpreted that only one pixel is utilized. This is unclear and why the claim is rejected under 112.
Applicant argues that the 102 rejection for claim 1 is overcome due to the amendments and states that Hill does not teach that its shifted cursor is based only on the first still image and not the first still image and the real-time image. An image feature is utilized as a guide in Hill such as the object (i.e. cube) which appears in both the first still image and the real-time image. This cube needs to be aligned with an object guide.
Applicant argues that the 102 rejection for claim 14 is overcome due to the amendments and states that Hill does not teach the capture of more than two images. This is unclear because claim 1 (which the examiner utilizes for the rejection of claim 14) states that a real-time image, a first still image and a second still image is captured (i.e. includes 3 images).
Applicant argues the 102 rejection for claim 3 is overcome due to the amendments and states that Hill does not dynamic changing the position of one of the guides with respect to other set of guides. Hill discloses the concept of guiding an image feature to a guide for guiding a user for 3D alignment based on a pair of images (i.e. changing the position of the image feature with respect to the guide). Also, Hill discloses that there may be plural objects in the scene (para. 0050) and the term “image feature” includes lines, patterns (i.e. each of these terms are plural). Furthermore, duplication of parts is deemed obvious by the board. Therefore, it would be obvious to utilize multiple image features for aligning with different guides.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8, 14-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20, 23, and 36-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,436,893 in view of Hill et al. (herein after will be referred to as Hill) (US 20070165129).
Regarding claim 1, Patent No. ‘893 claims the limitations in independent claim 20 except for:
correcting the captured first and second still images to compensate for at least one of camera vertical shift, and rotation on a predetermined axis; and
generating the three-dimensional image based on the corrected first and second still images.
However, Hill does disclose
correcting the captured first and second still images to compensate for at least one of camera vertical shift, and rotation on a predetermined axis; and [See Hill [0003-0004] Post-processing stage such as image rectification for re-aligning the two images. Important that the images are initially aligned as close as possible to reduce the amount of processing needed to perform image rectification.]
generating the three-dimensional image based on the corrected first and second still images. [See Hill [0001] Stereoscopic imaging.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Patent No. ‘893 to add the teachings of Hill, in order to incorporate a post-processing stage for aligning images captured for 3D to compensate for any additional effects such as hand shake etc. This will improve upon the 3D effect/images.
Regarding claim 2, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 claims
further comprising: determining guides based on one of the real-time image and the first still image; and displaying the guides to guide positioning of the at least one capture device in the position to capture the second still image for pairing the first and second still images as a stereoscopic pair for generating the three-dimensional image. [See Patent No. ‘893 Claim 1]
Regarding claim 3, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 2. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 claims
wherein determining guides comprises: determining a plurality of first guides based on the first still image of the scene; determining a plurality of second guides based the real-time image; detecting movement of the image capture device with respect to the scene; displaying the first and second guides; and in response to detecting movement of the image capture device, dynamically changing position of the one set of guides with respect to the other set of guides. [See Patent No. ‘893 Claim 23]
Regarding claim 4, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 claims
wherein capturing the second still image comprises: determining that the image capture device is located in the position to capture the second still image; and in response to determining that the image capture device is located in the position, automatically capturing the second still image. [See Patent No. ‘893 Claim 20]
Regarding claim 5, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising receiving, at the image capture device, user input for initiating image capture; and wherein capturing the second still image comprises: determining whether the image capture device is located in the position to capture the second still image when the image capture is initiated; and in response to determining that the image capture device is located in the position, capturing the second still image.
However, Hill does disclose
further comprising receiving, at the image capture device, user input for initiating image capture; and wherein capturing the second still image comprises: determining whether the image capture device is located in the position to capture the second still image when the image capture is initiated; and in response to determining that the image capture device is located in the position, capturing the second still image. [See Hill [0061] The user then moves the camera to the shifted cursor that is displayed to capture a second image. Also, see Fig. 1, shutter release control (7) which is actuated by a user (para. 0051).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
wherein generating the three-dimensional image comprises identifying left and right view images among the first and second still images.
However, Hill does disclose
wherein generating the three-dimensional image comprises identifying left and right view images among the first and second still images. [See Hill [0060] First captured image is identified as left eye image (i.e. and therefore, the second image is implicitly the other image or right image).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising determining interest points within the first and second still images for one or more of rectification and registration.
However, Hill does disclose
further comprising determining interest points within the first and second still images for one or more of rectification and registration. [See Hill [0003-0004] Post-processing stage such as image rectification for re-aligning the two images. Important that the images are initially aligned as close as possible to reduce the amount of processing needed to perform image rectification.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising adjusting at least one of a parallax and perspective of the captured images to result in one of a predetermined orientation and predetermined depth.
However, Hill does disclose
further comprising adjusting at least one of a parallax and perspective of the captured images to result in one of a predetermined orientation and predetermined depth. [See Hill [0003-0004] Post-processing stage such as image rectification for re-aligning the two images. Important that the images are initially aligned as close as possible to reduce the amount of processing needed to perform image rectification.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20, 23, and 36-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,436,893 in view of Hill (US 20070165129) and in further view of Koo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Koo) (US 20080112616).
Regarding claim 9, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images;
determining whether one of a parallax and disparity meets a predetermined criteria; and in response to determining one of a parallax or disparity does not meet the predetermined criteria, adjusting an attribute of at least one pixel in one of the first and second still images such that one of a parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria.
However, Koo does disclose
determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images; [See Koo [0027] Disparity estimator which estimates disparity in an input 3D image.]
determining whether one of a parallax and disparity meets a predetermined criteria; and in response to determining one of a parallax or disparity does not meet the predetermined criteria, adjusting an attribute of at least one pixel in one of the first and second still images such that one of a parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria. [See Koo [0027] Disparity adjustor analyzes a parallax range of the disparity histogram and determines a disparity adjustment amount. Also, see 0030, comparing values to a threshold.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) to add the teachings of Koo, in order to adjust the captured 3D images using disparity information to provide an optimal stereoscopic effect [See Koo [Abstract]].
Regarding claim 10, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill and Koo) disclose the method of claim 9. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising cropping one of the first and second still images.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising cropping one of the first and second still images. [See Koo [0022 and Fig. 9] Cropping portions of the left/right image.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images; determining whether there is negative parallax on edges of the images that exceeds a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the negative parallax on the edges of the images exceeds the predetermined threshold, adjusting a screen plane and cropping one of the first and second still images to meet the predetermined criteria.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images; determining whether there is negative parallax on edges of the images that exceeds a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the negative parallax on the edges of the images exceeds the predetermined threshold, adjusting a screen plane and cropping one of the first and second still images to meet the predetermined criteria. [See Koo [0027] Disparity adjustor analyzes a parallax range of the disparity histogram and determines a disparity adjustment amount. Also, see 0030, comparing values to a threshold. Also, see Fig. 1a and Fig. 5, negative parallax. Also, see 0059, adjusts the depth of the object. Also, see Fig. 9, Cropping edges of images.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising: determining a disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level: moving the object from one still image to one of within the other still image and within the same still image; and adjusting a depth of the object.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising: determining a disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level: moving the object from one still image to one of within the other still image and within the same still image; and adjusting a depth of the object. [See Koo [0059] Disparity adjustor….adjusts the depth of the object using disparity/parallax.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 13 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20, 23, and 36-37 of U.S. Patent No. 8,436,893 in view of Hill (US 20070165129) and in further view of Kim (US 20060120712).
Regarding claim 12, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) disclose the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level, removing the object from the first and second still images.
However, Kim does disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level, removing the object from the first and second still images. [See Kim [Fig. 1] Calculate disparity, extract distance using disparity, distance information of pixel within distance range to be displayed (no), display no image in portion corresponding to pixel (S19). Also, see 0007, removing an object from an image.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Hill) to add the teachings of Kim, in order to perform background removal and/or synthesizing the 3D image with another image [See Kim [0005]]. This will improve upon user functionality by allowing a user to change the background.
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.
Claims 9-10 and 17 are 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 9 states “in response to determining one of a parallax or disparity does not meet the predetermined criteria, adjusting an attribute of at least one pixel in one of the first and second still images such that one of a parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria.” How is it possible to correct for parallax/disparity by adjusting one pixel in either of the images? Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Hill (US 20070165129).
Regarding claim 1, Hill discloses
a method for generating a three-dimensional image, the method comprising: [See Hill [0001] Stereoscopic imaging.]
capturing, with an image capture device, a real-time image and a first still image of a scene, wherein the real-time image and the first still image form captured images; [See Hill [0052] First image and image displayed on viewfinder that is currently being imaged by the camera.]
determining guides based on the first still image and the real-time image; [See Hill [Figs. 4-5, 7] The object (21) is an image feature which is used as a guide in the viewfinder image/first still image. The shifted guide (27) is a second guide.]
displaying the guides and real-time image of the scene on a display; [See Hill [Fig. 4 and 0052] Viewfinder display, which displays the image currently imaged by the camera. Also, see Figs. 4-5, 7, The object (21) is an image feature which is used as a guide in the viewfinder image/first still image. The shifted guide (27) is a second guide.]
determining one of camera positional offset and pixel offset with respect to the first still image based on at least one of the captured images, an image sensor property, optical property, focal property, and viewing property of the captured images; [See Hill [0060] The cursor is shifter by the calculated amount laterally to the left with respect to its position when the first image was captured.]
determining that the image capture device is in a position indicated by the camera positional offset, wherein the image capture device is guided to the position based on the guides; capturing a second still image at the position; [See Hill [0061] The user then moves the camera to the shifted cursor that is displayed to capture a second image.]
correcting the captured first and second still images to compensate for at least one of camera vertical shift, and rotation on a predetermined axis; and [See Hill [0003-0004] Post-processing stage such as image rectification for re-aligning the two images. Important that the images are initially aligned as close as possible to reduce the amount of processing needed to perform image rectification.]
generating the three-dimensional image based on the corrected first and second still images. [See Hill [0001] Stereoscopic imaging.]
Regarding claim 2, Hill discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Hill discloses
further comprising: pairing the first and second still images as a stereoscopic pair for generating the three-dimensional image. [See Hill [0058] 3D image formed by the stereoscopic pair of images.]
Regarding claim 4, Hill discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Hill discloses
wherein capturing the second still image comprises: determining that the image capture device is located in the position to capture the second still image; and in response to determining that the image capture device is located in the position, automatically capturing the second still image. [See Hill [0061] The user then moves the camera to the shifted cursor that is displayed to capture a second image.]
Regarding claim 5, Hill discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Hill discloses
further comprising receiving, at the image capture device, user input for initiating image capture; and wherein capturing the second still image comprises: determining whether the image capture device is located in the position to capture the second still image when the image capture is initiated; and in response to determining that the image capture device is located in the position, capturing the second still image. [See Hill [0061] The user then moves the camera to the shifted cursor that is displayed to capture a second image. Also, see Fig. 1, shutter release control (7) which is actuated by a user (para. 0051).]
Regarding claim 6, Hill discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Hill discloses
wherein generating the three-dimensional image comprises identifying left and right view images among the first and second still images. [See Hill [0060] First captured image is identified as left eye image (i.e. and therefore, the second image is implicitly the other image or right image).]
Regarding claim 7, Hill discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Hill discloses
further comprising determining interest points within the first and second still images for one or more of rectification and registration. [See Hill [0003-0004] Post-processing stage such as image rectification for re-aligning the two images. Important that the images are initially aligned as close as possible to reduce the amount of processing needed to perform image rectification.]
Regarding claim 8, Hill discloses the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Hill discloses
further comprising adjusting at least one of a parallax and perspective of the captured images to result in one of a predetermined orientation and predetermined depth. [See Hill [0003-0004] Post-processing stage such as image rectification for re-aligning the two images. Important that the images are initially aligned as close as possible to reduce the amount of
processing needed to perform image rectification.]
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 6 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 7 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 8 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 3 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129).
Regarding claim 3, Hill discloses the method of claim 2. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
wherein determining guides comprises: determining a first set of guides based on the first still image of the scene; determining a second set of guides based the real-time image; detecting movement of the image capture device with respect to the scene; displaying the first set of guides and the second set of guides; and in response to detecting movement of the image capture device, dynamically changing position of one of the first set of guides or the second set of guides with respect to the other of the first set of guides or the second set of guides.
However, Hill does disclose
[See Hill [Figs. 4-6] Only one guide is generated based on the object such that the user aligns the object to the guide. However, para. 0050, discloses objects (i.e. plural) in the scene. Duplication of parts is deemed obvious by the board. Fig. 5 in Hill is analogous/identical to applicant’s Fig. 27 (middle drawing).]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Hill, in order to perform a duplication of guides for each object in view of the camera such that better alignment is performed by using additional object/image information.
Claims 9-11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Koo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Koo) (US 20080112616).
Regarding claim 9, Hill discloses the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images;
determining whether the one of the parallax and disparity meets a predetermined criteria; and in response to determining one of a parallax or disparity does not meet the predetermined criteria, adjusting an attribute of at least one pixel in one of the first and second still images such that the one of the parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria.
However, Koo does disclose
determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images; [See Koo [0027] Disparity estimator which estimates disparity in an input 3D image.]
determining whether the one of the parallax and disparity meets a predetermined criteria; and in response to determining one of a parallax or disparity does not meet the predetermined criteria, adjusting an attribute of at least one pixel in one of the first and second still images such that the one of the parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria. [See Koo [0027] Disparity adjustor analyzes a parallax range of the disparity histogram and determines a disparity adjustment amount. Also, see 0030, comparing values to a threshold.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Hill to add the teachings of Koo, in order to adjust the captured 3D images using disparity information to provide an optimal stereoscopic effect [See Koo [Abstract]].
Regarding claim 10, Hill (modified by Koo) disclose the method of claim 9. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
further comprising cropping one of the first and second still images.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising cropping one of the first and second still images. [See Koo [0022 and Fig. 9] Cropping portions of the left/right image.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 11, Hill discloses the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images; determining whether there is negative parallax on edges of the images that exceeds a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the negative parallax on the edges of the images exceeds the predetermined threshold, adjusting a screen plane and cropping one of the first and second still images to meet a predetermined criteria.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the first and second still images; determining whether there is negative parallax on edges of the images that exceeds a predetermined threshold; and in response to determining that the negative parallax on the edges of the images exceeds the predetermined threshold, adjusting a screen plane and cropping one of the first and second still images to meet a predetermined criteria. [See Koo [0027] Disparity adjustor analyzes a parallax range of the disparity histogram and determines a disparity adjustment amount. Also, see 0030, comparing values to a threshold. Also, see Fig. 1a and Fig. 5, negative parallax. Also, see 0059, adjusts the depth of the object. Also, see Fig. 9, Cropping edges of images.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 13, Hill discloses the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining a disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level: moving the object from one still image to one of within the other still image and within the same still image; and adjusting a depth of the object.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising: determining a disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level: moving the object from one still image to one of within the other still image and within the same still image; and adjusting a depth of the object. [See Koo [0059] Disparity adjustor….adjusts the depth of the object using disparity/parallax.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 9 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 10 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 13 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Kim (US 20060120712).
Regarding claim 12, Hill discloses the method of claim 8. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level, removing the object from the first and second still images.
However, Kim does disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between at least a portion of an object in the first and second still images; determining whether the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than a predetermined threshold level; and in response to determining that the one of the parallax and disparity is greater than the predetermined threshold level, removing the object from the first and second still images. [See Kim [Fig. 1] Calculate disparity, extract distance using disparity, distance information of pixel within distance range to be displayed (no), display no image in portion corresponding to pixel (S19). Also, see 0007, removing an object from an image.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the method by Hill to add the teachings of Kim, in order to perform background removal and/or synthesizing the 3D image with another image [See Kim [0005]]. This will improve upon user functionality by allowing a user to change the background.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached on 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486