DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads (US 20040001608 A1) in view of Kim et al (US 20110188700 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rhoads discloses a display control device (Rhoads fig. 20) comprising:
an insertion unit configured to insert a determination image into a time-series images (Rhoads [0011], “watermark embedder encodes a watermark signal (an insertion unit configured to insert a determination image) in a host signal”; [0051], “The host is … video sequence (time-series images)”);
a processing unit configured to execute warping processing on an image into which the determination image is inserted (Rhoads [0111], “the watermarked image may be stretched … each square may be warped”; [0233], “processing unit 1221”); and
a determination unit configured to determine whether or not a result of a CRC computation performed on the static region of the image after the warping processing matches first reference information (Rhoads [0055], “Error detection coding enables the decoder to determine when the extracted message has an error.”; [0123], “The embedder converts binary message bits into a series of binary raw bits … performs an error detection process (e.g., parity, Cyclic Redundancy Check (CRC), etc.) to generate error detection bits”).
Rhoads does not expressly disclose (highlighted portions)
insert a determination image into a static region, the static region being a region in which a pixel value does not change over time
However, Kim discloses (highlighted portions)
insert a determination image into a static region, the static region being a region in which a pixel value does not change over time (Kim [0058], “the watermark pattern image generation system 2600 may insert binary information values into a logo image (watermarked logo image is interpreted as reading on a static image region that does not change over time)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rhoads with Kim to insert watermarks along with image logos. This would have been done to insert watermarks in a minimally disruptive manner to original image signals. See for example, Kim [0057], “generating the watermark pattern image by using the logo image or the character image, it is difficult to visibly distinguish whether or not information values are inserted into the original image. Therefore, coded tracking information can be watermarked invisibly.”
Regarding claim 2, Rhoads in view of Kim discloses the display control device according to claim 1, wherein the time-series image includes an imaging region, the imaging region including a dynamic region in which a pixel value changes over time, and the static region in which the pixel value does not change over time (Kim [0045], “insert … a logo (static region in which the pixel value does not change over time) … into the video (a dynamic region in which a pixel value changes over time)”), and
the insertion unit is configured to insert the determination image into the static region within the imaging region of the time-series image, not the dynamic region (Kim [0058], “the watermark pattern image generation system 2600 may insert binary information values into a logo image (insert the determination image into the logo/static region within the imaging region of the time-series image, not the dynamic region)”).
Claim 11 recites a display control device which corresponds to the function performed by the display control device of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the display control device of claim 11.
Regarding claim 12, Rhoads in view of Kim discloses the display control device according to claim 11, further comprising a memory configured to store the first reference information used for the inspection processing (Rhoads [0236], “computer-readable media provide nonvolatile storage of data, data structures”).
Claim 14 recites a method which corresponds to the function performed by the display control device of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the method of claim 14.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads in view of Kim and further view of Yu et al (US 20160269777 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Rhoads in view of Kim discloses the display control device according to claim 2, but does not disclose wherein the static region is a black region disposed at a periphery of the dynamic region.
However, Yu discloses
wherein the static region is a black region disposed at a periphery of the dynamic region (Yu [0028], “adding black watermark borders on both sides of the target network video”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rhoads further with Yu to insert a black watermark border. This would have been done to make the displayed video even less disruptive as well as to make the video easily adaptable for display. See for example, Yu [0085].
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads in view of Kim and further view of Fontvielle et al (US 10600152 B1).
Regarding claim 8, Rhoads in view of Kim discloses the display control device according to claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising
a storage unit configured to store a variety of the first reference information corresponding to types of warp maps, the variety of the first reference information being different from one another according to the types of the warp maps,
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine using the first reference information corresponding to a type of a warp map used for the warping processing among the variety of the first reference information stored in the storage unit.
However, Fontvielle discloses
a storage unit configured to store a variety of the first reference information corresponding to types of warp maps, the variety of the first reference information being different from one another according to the types of the warp maps (Fontvielle col. 1, l, 54, “Displacement maps for the images may be determined based on interpolation of the warp maps. The images may be modified based on the displacement maps.”; col. 4, l. 63, “The electronic storage 12 may be configured to include electronic storage medium that electronically stores information … the electronic storage 12 may store information relating to images … warp maps”)
wherein the determination unit is configured to determine using the first reference information corresponding to a type of a warp map used for the warping processing among the variety of the first reference information stored in the storage unit (Fontvielle col. 3, l, 12, “The displacement map component may be configured to determine displacement maps for the images … The image modification component may be configured to modify the images. The images may be modified based on the displacement maps.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rhoads further with Fontvielle to store and utilize warp maps to use for warping images. This would have been done to adaptively warp images by confirming to image parameters in order to generate smooth image warping according to individual images.
Regarding claim 9, Rhoads in view of Kim discloses the display control device according to claim 1, but does not disclose further comprising
a generating unit configured to generate the first reference information corresponding to a type of a warp map used for the warping processing, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine using the first reference information generated by the generating unit.
However, Fontvielle discloses
a generating unit configured to generate the first reference information corresponding to a type of a warp map used for the warping processing, wherein the determination unit is configured to determine using the first reference information generated by the generating unit (Fontvielle col. 3, l, 12, “The displacement map component may be configured to determine displacement maps for the images … The image modification component may be configured to modify the images. The images may be modified based on the displacement maps.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rhoads further with Fontvielle to store and utilize warp maps to use for warping images. This would have been done to adaptively warp images by confirming to image parameters in order to generate smooth image warping according to individual images.
Regarding claim 10, Rhoads in view of Kim and further view of Fontvielle discloses the display control device according to claim 9, wherein, when the type of the warp map used for the warping processing is changed, the generating unit generates the first reference information corresponding to the changed type of the warp map, and the determination unit is configured to determine using the first reference information which is generated by the generating unit and corresponds to the changed type of the warp map (Fontvielle col. 10, l. 62, “the system 10 may recompute … warp parameter determination space … for the images (video frames) of the spherical video. The parameters may be recomputed periodically and/or based on movement”).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoads in view of Kim and further view of Eble et al (US 20210142443 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Rhoads in view of Kim discloses a display system comprising:
the display control device according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above);
a display device configured to display the image after the warping processing output from the display control device (Rhoads [0241], “A monitor 1247 or other type of display device”).
But does not disclose a head unit configured to generate an image to be processed by the display control device;
However, Eble discloses
a head unit configured to generate an image to be processed by the display control device (Eble [0248], “a method 2500 of processing a warped image .. an HMD, such as the HMD 100 of FIG. 1”; [0249], “a warped image representing simulated reality (SR) content to be displayed in a display space”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rhoads further with Eble to extend processing for HMDs. This would have enhanced Rhoads by making it more versatile and usable in a variety of applications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Claims 5-6 are allowable for depending from claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Conclusion
See the notice of references cited (PTO-892) for prior art made of record, including art that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 8am - 5pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights