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 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 12-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites “information” in line 5. This limitation was already recited in line 5 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 5 of claim 12 is the same or different from the limitation in line 5 of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “a video” in line 7. This limitation was already recited in line 6 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 7 of claim 12 is the same or different from the limitation in line 6 of claim 1.
Claim 12 recites “a video signal” in line 7. This limitation was already recited in line 3 of claim 1. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the limitation in line 7 of claim 12 is the same or different from the limitation in line 3 of claim 1.
Claims 13-17 are rejected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim 12.
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) 1-3, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190139286) in view of Choe et al. (U.S. Patent 10,983,515).
In regards to claim 1, Shimoda teaches an information processing system [Fig. 1; e.g. AR-HUD, 0061], comprising:
circuitry [e.g. CPU, 0063] configured to
acquire a video signal from which a motion component has been removed [Fig. 11; e.g. acquiring a video with vibration correction where a display shift of the video is removed, 0102-0103];
acquire information corresponding to the motion component [Fig. 11; e.g. acquires information on a vibration amount of the vehicle, 0102]; and
display a video corresponding to the video signal from which the motion component has been removed [e.g. display the video with the vibration correction where the display shift of the video is removed, 0102-0103].
Shimoda does not explicitly teach
the video having the information corresponding to the motion component visually superimposed thereon.
However, Choe teaches
the video having the information corresponding to the motion component visually superimposed thereon [Fig. 11; e.g. A current vibration level is displayed on the terrain scan images. The terrain scan images are captured by the camera and correspond to a video, c.10 L.9-22, also see c.5 L.7-20, c.9 L.3-9].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Shimoda’s system with the features of
the video having the information corresponding to the motion component visually superimposed thereon
in the same conventional manner as taught by Choe because Choe provides a method of displaying driving information necessary for a user to control the working vehicle to be driven on a corresponding route at an optimal driving speed [c.1 L.55-60].
In regards to claim 2, Shimoda teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to remove the motion component from an original video signal to acquire the video signal from which the motion component has been removed [e.g. the display shift is removed from the captured video of the camera to acquire the video with vibration correction, 0102-0103, also see 0070].
In regards to claim 3, Shimoda teaches the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the original video signal is acquired by a camera mounted in a vehicle [Fig. 1, 3; e.g. the camera video information is acquired by a camera in the vehicle, 0067, 0070].
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in method form. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a display control apparatus comprising the steps of claim 1. Furthermore, Shimoda teaches a display control apparatus [Fig. 1; e.g. video display, 0061] comprising the steps of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
Claim(s) 4, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimoda et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20190139286) in view of Choe et al. (U.S. Patent 10,983,515) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Murasumi et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20160355131).
In regards to claim 4, Shimoda as modified by Choe does not explicitly teach the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to visually superimpose a first band on the video.
However, Murasumi teaches the information processing system [Fig. 2; e.g. object alarm device, 0028] according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry [Fig. 2; e.g. CPU, 0029] is further configured to visually superimpose a first band on the video [Fig. 5; e.g. The warning symbols are superimposed onto the superimposed image. The warning symbols are lines of different widths. The superimposed image corresponds to one image out of a plurality of captured images from a camera. The plurality of captured images corresponds to a video, 0071-0073, 0077, also see 0033].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Shimoda’s system and the teachings of Choe with the features of
wherein the circuitry is further configured to visually superimpose a first band on the video
in the same conventional manner as taught by Murasumi because Murasumi provides a method for the driver to be alerted of high-risk target objects while driving a vehicle [0026, 0096].
In regards to claim 8, Shimoda as modified by Choe does not explicitly teach the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to visually superimpose the first band at upper and lower ends of the video.
However, Murasumi teaches the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to visually superimpose the first band at upper and lower ends of the video [Fig. 5; e.g. the warning symbols 50h and 50f are located at the upper and lower ends of the superimposed image, 0073].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the combination of Shimoda’s system and the teachings of Choe with the features of
wherein the circuitry is further configured to visually superimpose the first band at upper and lower ends of the video
in the same conventional manner as taught by Murasumi because Murasumi provides a method for the driver to be alerted of high-risk target objects while driving a vehicle [0026, 0096].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 9-11 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.
In regards to claim 5, Shimoda as modified by Choe does not explicitly teach the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to update a width of the first band depending on an amount of the motion component.
However, Murasumi teaches the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to update a width of the first band [Fig. 5; e.g. the width of the warning symbol depends on the distance of the object from the vehicle, 0077].
Shimoda as modified by Choe and Murasumi fails to teach or suggest the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry is further configured to update a width of the first band depending on an amount of the motion component (emphasis added).
Therefore, claim 5 is allowed over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 6-7, the claims depend on at least claim 5. Therefore, the claims 6-7 are allowed for at least the same reason as claim 5 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claims 9-11, the claims depend on at least claim 5. Therefore, the claims 9-11 are allowed for at least the same reason as claim 5 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In regards to claim 12, Shimoda as modified by Choe fails to teach or suggest the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to:
acquire a sound signal from which a predetermined sound source component has been removed;
acquire information corresponding to the predetermined sound source component; and
display a video corresponding to a video signal from which the predetermined sound source component has been removed, the video having the information corresponding to the predetermined sound source component visually superimposed thereon.
Therefore, claim 12 is allowed over the prior art of record if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims
In regards to claims 13-17, the claims depend on at least claim 12. Therefore, the claims 13-17 are allowed for at least the same reason as claim 12 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM 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, Said 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612