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 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), 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
In claims 1-17: “a control unit that [performs functions]…;”
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows the following structure corresponding to the claim limitations: Paragraph 70 of the specification states, “The control unit 320 is implemented by, for example, an electronic circuit such as a central processing unit (CPU), a microprocessor, or the like.”
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites an information processing device comprising a control unit that performs analyzing an image, determining a subject to clip, and clipping the subject. This is a device claim, and thus falls under one of the four statutory categories. (Step 1)
The limitations of analyzing an image, determining a subject to clip, and clipping the subject, as drafted, comprise a procedure that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, but for the recitation of “a control unit” (i.e. a processor, as discussed in the 112(f) interpretation) which is a generic computer component. That is, other than reciting “a control unit,” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. (It is noted that the claim states that the images had been acquired from imaging devices, but this is immaterial to the actual steps being performed, and is a given for any digital image.) For example, a person may obtain an image, identify a subject in the image, and clip the subject. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong 1)
Additionally, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because although the claim recites a control unit (i.e. a processor, as discussed in the 112(f) interpretation), this generic computer element is recited at a high-level of generality, and amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer, which does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. Additionally, the limitations do not improve the functionality of the computer, effect a transformation of an article to a different state or thing, or apply the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Accordingly, the claim elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong 2)
Finally, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the control unit amounts to no more than an attempt to relate the exception to a generic computer component. The additional computer element is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity previously known to the industry, is recited at a high-level of generality, and does not perform, or otherwise function in, the claimed steps. Thus the claim elements, whether taken individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2B)
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding independent claims 18 and 19, these claims each substantially overlap in scope with claim 1 and their analysis is substantially similar to that discussed above with respect to claim 1. Thus, these claims are similarly directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding dependent claims 2-14, these claims do not resolve the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore also directed to non-statutory subject matter, for the reasons discussed above.
It is noted that dependent claims 15-17 appear to resolve the deficiencies of the claims from which they depend, and are therefore directed to statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 is further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 19, this claim is drawn to a program that performs functions. The phrase “that causes a computer to function as a control unit” is immaterial here, because 1) the claim is explicitly drawn to the program itself, 2) a program that causes a computer to do something is merely a recitation of an intended use, and does not state that a computer is actually performing functions in the claim - i.e. the program defines its functions regardless of whether those functions are actively being executed, 3) functioning “as” a control unit does not infer that it “is” a control unit or that any hardware is present or interpreted as being present as defined in the specification (which is why this claim is not currently interpreted under 112(f), despite similar claim language as claim 1, and 4) all of the recited steps are merely instructions defined by the program. It is also noted that the claimed image being acquired from imaging devices is also immaterial to the actual steps being performed, as such devices are not part of the claimed invention, and are a given for any acquired digital image. Thus, all functional elements of claim 19 may be comprised of software or data structures, per se, and are therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0241961), referred herein as Choi.
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches an information processing device comprising a control unit that performs control (fig 1A, processing device 100, control unit 180) that analyzes an imaged image acquired from one or more imaging devices that image a target space (figs 8-11; paragraphs 219 and 220; paragraph 221, lines 1-6; images obtained from imaging devices are analyzed), determines one or more subjects as clipping targets from the imaged image (paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 223, the last 11 lines; particular target subjects are identified), and clips a determined subject (paragraph 225, lines 1-4; paragraph 226; the target subjects are clipped).
Regarding claim 2, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs clipping in a range including at least a face of the subject (paragraph 222, lines 1-6; paragraph 223, the last 7 lines).
Regarding claim 3, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit preferentially determines a subject that satisfies a predetermined condition as a clipping target (paragraph 222, lines 6-9; paragraph 235, lines 3-13).
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit determines a singing subject as a clipping target as a subject that satisfies the predetermined condition (paragraph 221, lines 1-6; paragraph 222, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 5, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit determines a subject positioned in a region of interest as a clipping target as a subject that satisfies the predetermined condition (figs 8-11; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 223, the last 7 lines).
Regarding claim 6, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the control unit determines a subject positioned at a center on a stage that is the target space as a clipping target as a subject that satisfies the predetermined condition (fig 8; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 235, the last 9 lines; paragraph 237, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 7, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit determines a fixed position on a stage as a clipping target in a case where a number of subjects is less than a predetermined number of clippings (figs 8 and 14; paragraph 221, lines 1-6; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 258; paragraph 259, the last 10 lines; paragraph 260; figure 14 shows three clippings 1450 and one subject in 1410, which results in fixed position clipping target 1430).
Regarding claim 8, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit performs clipping by a number of clippings corresponding to a number of outputs of an image (figs 8, 10, 11, and 14; paragraph 223, the last 7 lines; paragraph 238; paragraph 243; paragraph 259, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 9, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit performs clipping in a range including one subject or clipping in a range including a plurality of subjects (figs 8, 10, and 11; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 235; paragraph 242, lines 1-7).
Regarding claim 10, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 9, wherein the control unit performs clipping in a range including a predetermined margin above an uppermost part of a body of a subject as a clipping target (figs 8 and 11; paragraphs 223 and 224; paragraph 225, lines 1-4; paragraph 226; paragraph 242, lines 1-12).
Regarding claim 11, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the control unit further performs clipping in a range including a margin in an eye line direction in a case where an eye line of a subject as the clipping target is directed to left and right (figs 8 and 11; paragraph 221; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 242, lines 1-10; in figure 8 the subject faces right, in figure 11, the subjects face left, and in both cases clipping includes a margin in the eye direction; alternatively, in another interpretation, paragraphs 103-105 describe left and right eye images to be used in the clipping process).
Regarding claim 12, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the control unit further performs clipping in a range including at least a hand of the subject (figs 8, 10, and 14; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 235; paragraph 259, lines 1-8; each shows clipping including at least a hand).
Regarding claim 13, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs clipping in a range including a plurality of subjects and clipping in a range including one subject included in the plurality of subjects (figs 8, 10, and 11; paragraph 221; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 235; paragraph 237, lines 1-7; paragraph 242, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 14, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit performs clipping in a range including one or more subjects in a predetermined area on a stage (figs 8 and 11; paragraph 221; paragraph 222, lines 1-9; paragraph 242, lines 1-10; paragraph 243).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the limitations of each of these claims substantially correspond to the limitations of claim 1; thus they are rejected on similar grounds.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of Baudisch et al. (“An Exploration of User Interface Designs for Real-Time Panoramic Photography”), May 2006, referred herein as Baudisch.
Regarding claim 15, Choi teaches the information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the imaged image is a plurality of imaged images having partially overlapping view angles acquired from a plurality of imaging devices disposed on a seat side of a stage, and the control unit arranges and displays the plurality of imaged images side by side (fig 8; fig 16, view angles 1651-1654 and side by side result 1630; fig 14, side by side images 1450; paragraph 258; paragraph 259, lines 1-11; paragraph 267; paragraph 268, lines 1-7; it is noted that images of the singer are necessarily captured from cameras “on a seat side” of the stage, because any other camera position [i.e. side-stage or back-stage] would not result in a frontal view of the singer).
Choi does not explicitly teach that the control unit displays the images in a partially overlapping state, and receives adjustment of an overlapping position.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Baudisch teaches an information processing device comprising a control unit that acquires images of a target space and determines one or more areas as clipping target (fig 3; abstract, lines 1-2 and 6-14; page 153, the last two paragraphs under “Panoramic Viewfinder”), wherein the control unit displays the images in a partially overlapping state, and receives adjustment of an overlapping position (figs 4 and 5b; pages 154-155, steps 3-5; page 159, the paragraph beginning “After…” and the paragraph beginning “Once…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the overlap adjustments of Baudisch with the multi-camera image processing of Choi because this enables users to quickly and intuitively stitch the multiple view of the target space together in real-time, while increasing the efficiency and quality of the output image (see, for example, Baudisch, abstract, the last 10 lines; page 155, the paragraph beginning “This…”; paragraph 163, the paragraph beginning “At the expense…”)
Regarding claim 16, Choi in view of Baudisch teaches the information processing device according to claim 15, wherein the control unit performs control for outputting a plurality of clipped images obtained by clipping to a device that switches a distribution image, and performs control for displaying the plurality of clipped images on a display unit together with the plurality of imaged images arranged side by side (Choi, fig 14; paragraph 257; paragraph 258, lines 1-6; paragraphs 259 and 260).
Regarding claim 17, Choi in view of Baudisch teaches the information processing device according to claim 15, wherein in a case where a subject as the clipping target moves from a first imaged image to a second imaged image of the plurality of imaged images arranged side by side, the control unit switches an imaged image of a clipping source at a portion where the first imaged image and the second imaged image overlap (Choi, fig 16; paragraph 268 and 270; paragraph 271, the last 7 lines; paragraph 273).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sitrick (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0151743); Image tracking and substitution system and methodology for audio-visual presentations.
Maciuca (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0094773); Collaborative image collection and processing using portable cameras.
Wexler (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0064363); Systems and methods for selecting content based on a user's behavior.
Yu (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0180680); Object following view presentation method and system.
Parsley (U.S. Patent No. 11,449,130); Visual and inertial motion tracking.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID T WELCH whose telephone number is (571)270-5364. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday, 8:30-5:30 EST, and alternate Fridays, 9:00-2:30 EST.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached on 571-272-7761. 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.
DAVID T. WELCH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2613
/DAVID T WELCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613