DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 04/07/2026, with respect to the 112 rejection has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
The double patenting rejection header was corrected to include the correct claims in regards to U.S. Patent 8,436,893.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/07/2026 has been entered.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 17-18 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 1 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
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 4]
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 1]
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.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 17-18 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.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 17-18 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.
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,436,893 in view of Kochi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kochi) (US 20080263924).
Regarding claim 14, Patent No. ‘893 claims the limitations in independent claim 1 except for:
receiving, from an image capture device, a plurality of images of a scene captured as a video sequence of images by the image capture device from different positions;
determining a distance between the images based on motion analysis;
generating, based on the distance, a pair of images from the plurality of images for use in generating a three-dimensional image;
However, Kochi does disclose
receiving, from an image capture device, a plurality of images of a scene captured as a video sequence of images by the image capture device from different positions; [See Kochi [0004] continuously photographing an object while the photographing device is moving relative to the object.]
determining a distance between the images based on motion analysis; [See Kochi [Abstract] A series of sequentially photographed images are acquired, from which feature points are extracted. The feature points are tracked and correlated to each other.]
generating, based on the distance, a pair of images from the plurality of images for use in generating a three-dimensional image; [See Kochi [0074] Stereo images are selected from various candidate combinations of images. Stereo pair candidate list of selected combinations as candidates uses baseline length of each pair formed.]
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 Kochi, in order to extend the claim teachings to a video recording setup and that the appropriate stereo images selected are based on an obvious baseline distance between images.
Regarding claim 15, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) claim the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 claims
wherein generating the three-dimensional image comprises identifying left and right view images among the first and second still images. [See Patent No. ‘893 Claim 1]
Regarding claim 16, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) claim the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not claim
further comprising determining interest points within the first and second still images for one or more of rectification and registration.
However, Kochi does disclose
further comprising determining interest points within the first and second still images for one or more of rectification and registration. [See Kochi [Abstract]]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 14.
Regarding claim 20, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) claim the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not 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, Kochi 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 Kochi [0077]]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 14.
Claims 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 17-18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,436,893 in view of Kochi (US 20080263924) and in further view of Koo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Koo) (US 20080112616).
Regarding claim 17, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) claim the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not claim
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the pair of 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 pair of images such that the one of the parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the pair of 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 pair of 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 Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) 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 18, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Patent No. ‘893 does not explicitly claim
further comprising cropping one of the images in the pair.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising cropping one of the images in the pair. [See Koo [0022 and Fig. 9] Cropping portions of the left/right image.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Patent No. ‘893 (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. 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 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 17.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Hofer (US 20040189849).
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 captured image and image displayed on viewfinder.]
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.]
Hill does not explicitly disclose
determining guides based on the first still image and the real-time image;
displaying the guides and real-time image of the scene on a display;
However, Hofer does disclose
determining guides based on the first still image and the real-time image; [See Hofer [0044 and Fig. 7C-7D] Live-view screen including alignment guide (706) and composition guide (704) for user alignment in regards to capturing the next image.]
displaying the guides and real-time image of the scene on a display; [See Hofer [0044 and Fig. 7C-7D] Live-view screen including alignment guide (706) and composition guide (704) for user alignment in regards to capturing the next 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 Hofer, in order to perform a simple substitution of how images are aligned (i.e. Hill performs alignment by aligning image features to a cursor/guide, whereas Hofer performs alignment by aligning a first guide to a second guide).
Regarding claim 2, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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 3, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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, Hofer does 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. [See Hofer [0044 and Fig. 7C-7D] Live-view screen including alignment guide (706) and composition guide (704) for user alignment in regards to capturing the next image. It is obvious to perform duplication of parts (deemed obvious by the board) and generate/display a plurality of alignments guides such that better alignment is achieved.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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. Also, see 0037, automatically take image.]
Regarding claim 5, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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 (modified by Hofer) disclose 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 (modified by Hofer) disclose 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. Also, see 0024, feature points for correlation.]
Regarding claim 8, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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.]
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Hofer (US 20040189849) and in further view of Koo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Koo) (US 20080112616).
Regarding claim 9, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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 (modified by Hofer) 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 Hofer and 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 (modified by Hofer) disclose 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 (modified by Hofer) disclose 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.
Claim 12 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Hofer (US 20040189849) and in further view of Kim (US 20060120712).
Regarding claim 12, Hill (modified by Hofer) disclose 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 (modified by Hofer) 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.
Claims 14-16 and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Kochi et al. (herein after will be referred to as Kochi) (US 20070263924).
Regarding claim 14, Hill discloses
a method for generating a three-dimensional image, the method comprising: using at least one processor for: [See Hill [0001] Select stereoscopic pairs from video sequences.]
receiving, from an image capture device, a plurality of images of a scene captured as a video sequence of images by the image capture device from different positions; [See Hill [0001] Select stereoscopic pairs from video sequences. Also, see 0061, moving the camera to capture image.]
correcting the pair of images to compensate for 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 a three-dimensional image based on the corrected pair of images. [See Hill [0003] Make stereoscopic image after rectification.]
Hill does not explicitly disclose
determining a distance between the images based on motion analysis;
generating, based on the distance, a pair of images from the plurality of images for use in generating a three-dimensional image;
However, Kochi does disclose
determining a distance between the images based on motion analysis; [See Kochi [Abstract] A series of sequentially photographed images are acquired, from which feature points are extracted. The feature points are tracked and correlated to each other.]
generating, based on the distance, a pair of images from the plurality of images for use in generating a three-dimensional image; [See Kochi [0074] Stereo images are selected from various candidate combinations of images. Stereo pair candidate list of selected combinations as candidates uses baseline length of each pair formed.]
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 Kochi, in order to utilize the correlation metric and/or the distance between images that correspond to the average interocular distance of a human in Hill (para. 0058, 0070) for selecting stereo image pairs when recording video. This will improve upon the 3D alignment by having the ability to select from multiple images.
Regarding claim 15, Hill (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. 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 16, Hill (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. 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. Also, see 0024, feature points for correlation.]
Regarding claim 20, Hill (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. 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.]
Claims 17-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hill (US 20070165129) in view of Kochi (US 20070263924) and in further view of Koo et al. (herein after will be referred to as Koo) (US 20080112616).
Regarding claim 17, Hill (modified by Kochi) discloses the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the pair of 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 pair of images such that the one of the parallax and disparity meets the predetermined criteria.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising: determining one of a parallax and disparity between the pair of 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 pair of 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 (modified by Kochi) 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 18, Hill (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. Furthermore, Hill does not explicitly disclose
further comprising cropping one of the images in the pair.
However, Koo does disclose
further comprising cropping one of the images in the pair. [See Koo [0022 and Fig. 9] Cropping portions of the left/right image.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 17.
Regarding claim 19, Hill (modified by Kochi) disclose the method of claim 14. 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 17.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights