Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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.
The term “continuously perform capture processing” in claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “continuously perform capture processing” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara, et al. (US 20250095287 A1) in view of Walton, et al. (Walton, David R., et al. "Synthesis of Environment Maps for Mixed Reality." 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 2017.), Pyles (US 20230206513 A1) and Fung, et al. (US 20220346911 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, for claim 1, Sakurahara teaches A system, comprising:
circuitry configured to (fig 3; showing a display device and the circuitry)
generate display data in which a three-dimensional model (fig 6, S1; disclosing creation of a 3D model) and an image captured (spec [0035]; disclosing that an image is captured) are superimposed; (fig 6, S2; discloses superimposing an object to an image)
perform alignment to align a position of an object included in the three-dimensional model (fig 6, S3; disclosing correction of a 3D model to an image) and a position of a subject included in the image; (fig 11, S311; teaches correction of a 3D model to a target object)
capture a superimposed image (fig 6 and 8; discloses creation of a superimposed image and then storing it) in which the position of the object included in the three-dimensional model and the position of the subject included in the image are aligned by the alignment; and (fig 11, S311-312; teaches alignment of an object to a target subject)
However, Sakurahara fails to teach continuously perform capture processing
project the captured superimposed image on a virtual sphere for display such that the captured superimposed image follows movement of a viewpoint position and maintains the alignment in response to the movement of the viewpoint position.
Walton teaches project the captured superimposed image on a virtual sphere for display (fig 6; discloses a superimposed image projected on a virtual sphere to be displayed)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with Walton’s virtual sphere in order to provide entertaining images and/or to access the quality of the captured superimposed image when displayed. In addition, Walton teaches a superimposing process that is similar to Sakurahara. Walton Fig. 4. After the combination of Sakurahara and Walton, either Sakurahara’s or Walton’s captured superimposed image could be projected on a virtual sphere to be displayed.
However, Sakurahara in view of Walton fails to teach continuously perform capture processing to
Pyles teaches continuously perform capture processing to (spec [0045]; “The capture device 60 is preferentially installed on the top of the movable frame 12, and it is controlled by the control unit 80 to continuously capture a high quality and high frame rate real-time images in front of the exercise instruction device 1,”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with Walton’s virtual sphere and then combine them with Pyles’ control unit in order to allow creating animations using a virtual sphere.
However, Sakurahara in view of Walton and Pyles fails to teach project the captured superimposed image such that the captured superimposed image follows movement of a viewpoint position and maintains the alignment in response to the movement of the viewpoint position.
Fung teaches project the captured superimposed image such that the captured superimposed image follows movement of a viewpoint position and maintains the alignment in response to the movement of the viewpoint position. (spec [0043]; “In some embodiments, system 100 includes software 128 for maintaining the superimposition between the virtual guide and physical guide 110 in mixed reality device 102. Maintaining the alignment between the virtual guide and physical guide 110 gives both the practitioner and the patient the freedom to move or reorient themselves in physical space. Thus, a practitioner can momentarily look away to retrieve or swap out dental instruments, and the patient can move their head or body, without necessitating a realignment. Even if the practitioner moves, such as for a better viewing angle, the guide remains “snapped” in place and does not need to be realigned. Because mixed reality device 102 may include accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometer and other sensors, the mixed reality device can be moved/shifted from its original position while the patient stays in place and the virtual dental treatment template would still be able to maintain the congruency/superimposition.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with Walton’s virtual sphere and then combine them with Pyles’ control unit, and then combine them with Fung’s software to maintain alignment in order to prevent misalignments from occurring when moving the viewpoint.
For claim 6, it recites claim 1 in method form and is rejected with the same rationale as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The system of claim 1, wherein:
the circuitry is configured to generate an additional superimposed image (Walton; fig 6; discloses a superimposed image for the 3D model of a room and another superimposed image on a virtual sphere) in which the virtual sphere on which the captured superimposed image is projected is arranged in a three-dimensional virtual space of the three-dimensional model. (Walton; fig. 6; discloses a superimposed image projected on a virtual sphere arranged in a virtual space of the 3D model shown in the background)
Regarding claims 3 and 12, for claim 3, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The system of claim 1, wherein:
the circuitry is configured to perform the alignment according to a user operation. (Sakurahara; spec [0044]; discloses that the user can aligning an object using cursors with an arithmetic processing unit to do the aligning)
For claim 12, it recites claim 3, but depends on claim 6 and rejected using the same rationale as claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The system of claim 1, wherein:
the circuitry is configured to detect the object included in the three-dimensional model and the subject corresponding to the object (Sakurahara; spec [0045]; teaches detecting the presence of a target object) to perform the alignment. (Sakurahara; spec [0048]; discloses aligning and superimposing the detected object to a detected subject in an image using an arithmetic processing unit)
Regarding claim 5, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The system of claim 1, wherein:
the captured superimposed image projected on the virtual sphere has adjustable transparency. (Pyles; spec [0014]; discloses a command receiving interface for adjusting transparency of two images overlapping each other. After the combination of Sakurahara in view of Walton and Pyles, Sakurahara in view of Walton’s captured superimposed image projected on the virtual sphere could be adjusted, e.g., transparency, according to Pyles).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara, et al. (US 20250095287 A1) in view of Pyles (US 20230206513 A1) and Fung, et al. (US 20220346911 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sakarahara teaches A display device, comprising:
circuitry configured to (fig 3; showing a display device and the circuitry)
acquire a captured superimposed image (fig 6, S1-2 and fig 11, S313; disclosing that a 3D model is superimposed on the image where a three-dimensional model is created and then storing the superimposed image) in which a position of an object included in a three-dimensional model and a position of a subject included in an image are aligned; and (fig 6 S3; disclosing correcting an object to match with the image)
However, Sakurahara fails to teach continuously perform capture processing to
project and display the captured superimposed image on a display such that the captured superimposed image follows movement of a viewpoint position and maintains alignment in response to the movement of the viewpoint position.
Pyles teaches continuously perform capture processing to (spec [0045]; “The capture device 60 is preferentially installed on the top of the movable frame 12, and it is controlled by the control unit 80 to continuously capture a high quality and high frame rate real-time images in front of the exercise instruction device 1,”, the control unit disclosed by Pyles could be used to continuously capture superimposed images)
project and display the captured superimposed image on a display (spec [0038]; discloses using a projector to project an image on a vertical surface)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with Pyles’ control unit in order to continuously capture the superimposed image on a display so that the user can still see the superimposed image.
However, Sakurahara in view of Pyles fails to teach project and display the captured superimposed image on a display such that the captured superimposed image follows movement of a viewpoint position and maintains alignment in response to the movement of the viewpoint position.
Fung teaches project and display the captured superimposed image on a display (spec [0042]; “In some embodiments, the neighborhood around the feature points, the physical arch, the physical guide, etc., are used to align the virtual guide with the physical guide.”, the virtual guide is projected and displayed on the physical guide) such that the captured superimposed image follows movement of a viewpoint position and maintains alignment in response to the movement of the viewpoint position. (spec [0043]; “In some embodiments, system 100 includes software 128 for maintaining the superimposition between the virtual guide and physical guide 110 in mixed reality device 102. Maintaining the alignment between the virtual guide and physical guide 110 gives both the practitioner and the patient the freedom to move or reorient themselves in physical space. Thus, a practitioner can momentarily look away to retrieve or swap out dental instruments, and the patient can move their head or body, without necessitating a realignment. Even if the practitioner moves, such as for a better viewing angle, the guide remains “snapped” in place and does not need to be realigned.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine Sakurahara’s apparatus with Pyles’ capture device and then add Fung’s software to maintain alignment in order to prevent misalignments from occurring when moving the viewpoint.
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara, et al. (US 20250095287 A1) in view of Walton, et al. (Walton, David R., et al. "Synthesis of Environment Maps for Mixed Reality." 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 2017.), Pyles (US 20230206513 A1) and Fung, et al. (US 20220346911 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 6 above, and further in view of Sychev, et al. (US 20200145695 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 13, for claim 8, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The system according to claim 3, wherein:
the user operation for the alignment includes at least one of (Sakurahara; spec [0044]; discloses that the user can aligning an object using cursors with an arithmetic processing unit to do the aligning)
However, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung fails to teach changing coordinates of the virtual sphere by matching the viewpoint position with a center position of the virtual sphere,
rotating the virtual sphere in a yaw direction, a roll direction, or a pitch direction, or
changing a diameter of the virtual sphere.
Sychev teaches changing coordinates of the virtual sphere by matching the viewpoint position with a center position of the virtual sphere,
rotating the virtual sphere in a yaw direction, a roll direction, or a pitch direction, or
changing a diameter of the virtual sphere. (spec [0054]; “A three-dimensional sphere centered at s.sub.1 represents the initial spherical image. Let us denote by s.sub.2 the shifted center of the transformed spherical image and by R the scaling factor of the radius, i.e. the shifted sphere has a radius R, assuming a radius equal to 1 for the initial sphere.”, changing the radius of a sphere also changes the diameter)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add Sychev’s scaling factor to the apparatus of claim 1 to allow for more customization of virtual spheres.
For claim 13, it recites claim 8, but depend on claims 12 and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 8.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara, et al. (US 20250095287 A1) in view of Walton, et al. (Walton, David R., et al. "Synthesis of Environment Maps for Mixed Reality." 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality (ISMAR). IEEE, 2017.), Pyles (US 20230206513 A1) and Fung, et al. (US 20220346911 A1) as applied to claim(s) 1, 6 and 7 above, and further in view of Tošić, et al. (Tošić, Ivana, et al. "Multi-Camera Networks Principles and Applications." Academic Press. Signal Processing Laboratory (LTS4), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2009.).
Regarding claims 9 and 14, for claim 9, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The system according to claim 1, wherein:
the captured superimposed image is a wide-field image including at least one of (Sakurahara; fig 6 and 8; discloses creation of a superimposed image and then storing it)
However, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung fails to teach the wide-field image with a solid angle of 4π steradians,
a 360-degree image obtained by capturing an entire 360-degree circumference,
a spherical image,
a panoramic image,
an omnidirectional image, or
the wide-field image obtained by capturing the entire 360-degree circumference of a horizontal plane.
Tošić teaches the wide-field image with a solid angle of 4π steradians,
a 360-degree image obtained by capturing an entire 360-degree circumference,
a spherical image,
a panoramic image,
an omnidirectional image, or
the wide-field image obtained by capturing the entire 360-degree circumference of a horizontal plane. (10.2.1 Cameras; “The images acquired by traditional perspective cameras can be used to construct an omnidirectional image, either by rotating a single camera or by construction of a multi-camera system. Obtained images are then aligned and stitched together to form a 360-degree view.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 1 with Tošić’s omnidirectional images in order to make creating virtual spheres easier.
For claims 14, it recites the limitations of claim 9, but depend on claims 6 and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 9.
Regarding claims 10 and 15, for claim 10, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles, Fung and Tošić teaches The system according to claim 9, wherein:
the wide-field image is a full-spherical omnidirectional image. (Tošić; 10.2.1 Cameras; “The images acquired by traditional perspective cameras can be used to construct an omnidirectional image, either by rotating a single camera or by construction of a multi-camera system. Obtained images are then aligned and stitched together to form a 360-degree view.”)
For claims 15, it recites the limitations of claim 10, but depend on claims 14 and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 10.
Regarding claims 11 and 16, for claim 11, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles, Fung and Tošić teaches The system according to claim 9, wherein:
the wide-field image includes multiple wide-angle lens images or multiple fisheye lens images. (Tošić; 10.2.1 Cameras; “According to their construction, omnidirectional vision sensors can be classified into three types: systems that use multiple images (i.e., image mosaics), devices that use special lenses, and catadioptric devices that employ a combination of convex mirrors and lenses.”)
For claims 16, it recites the limitations of claim 11, but depend on claims 14 and is rejected using the same rationale as claim 11.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara, et al. (US 20250095287 A1) in view of Pyles (US 20230206513 A1) and Fung, et al. (US 20220346911 A1) as applied to claim(s) 7 above, and further in view of Sychev, et al. (US 20200145695 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung teaches The display device according to claim 7, wherein:
the captured superimposed image is projected onto a virtual sphere to be displayed on the display,
the circuitry is configured to perform the alignment according to a user operation, and (Sakurahara; spec [0044]; discloses that the user can aligning an object using cursors with an arithmetic processing unit to do the aligning)
the user operation for the alignment includes at least one of (Sakurahara; spec [0044]; discloses that the user can aligning an object using cursors with an arithmetic processing unit to do the aligning)
However, Sakurahara in view of Pyles and Fung fail to teach changing coordinates of the virtual sphere by matching the viewpoint position with a center position of the virtual sphere,
rotating the virtual sphere in a yaw direction, a roll direction, or a pitch direction, or
changing a diameter of the virtual sphere.
Sychev teaches changing coordinates of the virtual sphere by matching the viewpoint position with a center position of the virtual sphere,
rotating the virtual sphere in a yaw direction, a roll direction, or a pitch direction, or
changing a diameter of the virtual sphere. (spec [0054]; “A three-dimensional sphere centered at s.sub.1 represents the initial spherical image. Let us denote by s.sub.2 the shifted center of the transformed spherical image and by R the scaling factor of the radius, i.e. the shifted sphere has a radius R, assuming a radius equal to 1 for the initial sphere.”, changing the radius of a sphere also changes the diameter)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to add Sychev’s scaling factor to the apparatus of claim 7 to allow for more customization of virtual spheres.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurahara, et al. (US 20250095287 A1) in view of Pyles (US 20230206513 A1) and Fung, et al. (US 20220346911 A1) as applied to claim(s) 7 above, and further in view of Tošić, et al. (Tošić, Ivana, et al. "Multi-Camera Networks Principles and Applications." Academic Press. Signal Processing Laboratory (LTS4), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, 2009.).
Regarding claim 18, Sakurahara in view of Pyles and Fung teaches The display device according to claim 7, wherein:
the captured superimposed image is a wide-field image including at least one of (Sakurahara; fig 6 and 8; discloses creation of a superimposed image and then storing it)
However, Sakurahara in view of Walton, Pyles and Fung fails to teach the wide-field image with a solid angle of 4π steradians,
a 360-degree image obtained by capturing an entire 360-degree circumference,
a spherical image,
a panoramic image,
an omnidirectional image, or
the wide-field image obtained by capturing the entire 360-degree circumference of a horizontal plane.
Tošić teaches the wide-field image with a solid angle of 4π steradians,
a 360-degree image obtained by capturing an entire 360-degree circumference,
a spherical image,
a panoramic image,
an omnidirectional image, or
the wide-field image obtained by capturing the entire 360-degree circumference of a horizontal plane. (10.2.1 Cameras; “The images acquired by traditional perspective cameras can be used to construct an omnidirectional image, either by rotating a single camera or by construction of a multi-camera system. Obtained images are then aligned and stitched together to form a 360-degree view.”)
It would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the apparatus of claim 7 with Tošić’s omnidirectional images in order to make creating virtual spheres easier.
Regarding claim 19, Sakurahara in view of Pyles, Fung and Tošić teaches The display device according to claim 18, wherein:
the wide-field image is a full-spherical omnidirectional image. (Tošić; 10.2.1 Cameras; “The images acquired by traditional perspective cameras can be used to construct an omnidirectional image, either by rotating a single camera or by construction of a multi-camera system. Obtained images are then aligned and stitched together to form a 360-degree view.”)
Regarding claim 20, Sakurahara in view of Pyles, Fung and Tošić teaches The display device according to claim 18, wherein:
the wide-field image includes multiple wide-angle lens images or multiple fisheye lens images. (Tošić; 10.2.1 Cameras; “According to their construction, omnidirectional vision sensors can be classified into three types: systems that use multiple images (i.e., image mosaics), devices that use special lenses, and catadioptric devices that employ a combination of convex mirrors and lenses.”)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page , filed 3/20/2026, with respect to spec [0043] have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of spec [0043] has been withdrawn. The examiner would like to address the argument and the proposed amendment:
PNG
media_image1.png
141
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The examiner agrees, because the informality regarding the lens optical system 114A has been corrected. As such, the objection regarding spec [0043] is withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page, filed 3/20/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of 35 U.S.C. The examiner would like to address the arguments:
PNG
media_image3.png
573
637
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The examiner agrees that the amendments overcame the previous art. However, while the term “continuously perform capture processing” overcame the previous prior art, it was an indefinite term, resulting in a 112(b) rejection. Additionally, Pyles teaches “continuously perform capture processing”, disclosing a control unit to continuously perform capturing in spec [0045]. Furthermore, Fung teaches “such that the captured superimposed image follows movements of a viewpoint position and maintains the alignment in response to the movement of the view point position.” disclosing a software that maintains alignment of a superimposed image in spec [0043].
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 IRVING SHI whose telephone number is (571)272-9613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/IRVING NMN SHI/Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/TAMMY GODDARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights