DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in reply to Applicant’s response filed 12 August 2026.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement 12 August 2026 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC § 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 1–3, 7–10, and 14–17 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lawson et al. (US 10,065,122; “Lawson”).
As per claim 1, Lawson discloses:
An image generating apparatus (see, e.g., Fig. 3) comprising:
a display image generating section (e.g., Fig. 3, 311) configured to:
reference scene information, as referenced scene information (Fig. 3, 312 including 313A and 313B; C10:L18–57); and
generate image data of a scene represented by the referenced scene information, as display image data, based on a predetermined first image generating parameter (C10:L18–57); and
a recording image generating section (e.g., Fig. 3, 321 and/or 323) configured to generate in parallel the image data of the scene as recording image data based on a second image generating parameter different from the predetermined first image generating parameter by referencing the same scene information referenced by the display image generating section (C10:57–C11:L8; C11:L34–64; C12:L28–48; C14:L24–53; C18:L15–53).
As per claim 2, Lawson discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the predetermined first image generating parameter and the second image generating parameter include at least a resolution of the image data to be generated (C14:L24–53), and
the recording image generating section generates the recording image data at a resolution different from a resolution of the display image data (C14:L24–53).
As per claim 3, Lawson discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the predetermined first image generating parameter and the second image generating parameter include at least information representing a region in the scene included in the display
the recording image generating section generates the recording image data including a region different from the region in the scene included in the display image data (C15:L10–22).
As per claim 7, Lawson discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the scene includes a plurality of types of objects (e.g., C15:L33–42); and
the recording image generating section generates one or a plurality of pieces of the image data of the scene, each piece of the image data including a same type of object, as the recording image data, based on the second image generating parameter (C15:L43–C16:L10).
As per claims 8–10 and 14–17, these claims contain language similar to claims 1–3 and 7 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 8–10 and 14–17 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by Lawson.
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ninoles et al. (US 2018/0139257 A1; “Ninoles”).
As per claim 1, Ninoles discloses:
An image generating apparatus (see, e.g., Fig. 1) comprising:
a display image generating section (e.g., Fig. 1, 120 including 122, 124, & 126) configured to:
reference scene information, as referenced scene information (¶ [0023]); and
generate image data of a scene represented by the referenced scene information, as display image data, based on a predetermined first image generating parameter (¶¶ [0023]–[0025] ); and
a recording image generating section (e.g., Fig. 1, 126 and/or 130) configured to generate in parallel the image data of the scene as recording image data based on a second image generating parameter different from the predetermined first image generating parameter by referencing the same scene information referenced by the display image generating section (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]).
As per claim 2, Ninoles discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the predetermined first image generating parameter and the second image generating parameter include at least a resolution of the image data to be generated (e.g., ¶¶ [0061], [0063]), and
the recording image generating section generates the recording image data at a resolution different from a resolution of the display image data (e.g., ¶¶ [0061], [0063]).
As per claim 3, Ninoles discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the predetermined first image generating parameter and the second image generating parameter include at least information representing a region in the scene included in the display
the recording image generating section generates the recording image data including a region different from the region in the scene included in the display image data (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]).
As per claim 4, Ninoles discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
the scene includes at least one object (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]);
the second image generating parameter includes information representing a region to be extracted from the scene, the scene being determined in reference to information regarding a position of the object (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]); and
the recording image generating section generates as the recording image data an image inside the region represented by the information included in the second image generating parameter (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]).
As per claim 5, Ninoles discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the scene includes a plurality of objects (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]); and
the recording image generating section generates the image data of the scene from which at least one of the objects in the scene is extracted, as the recording image data, based on the second image generating parameter (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]).
As per claim 6, Ninoles discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 5, wherein one of the objects is a character object included in the scene (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]).
As per claim 7, Ninoles discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the scene includes a plurality of types of objects (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]); and
the recording image generating section generates one or a plurality of pieces of the image data of the scene, each piece of the image data including a same type of object, as the recording image data, based on the second image generating parameter (e.g., ¶¶ [0033]–[0035], [0049], [0059]–[0063]).
As per claims 8–20, these claims contain language similar to claims 1–7 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 8–20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 102 as being anticipated by Ninoles.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 USC § 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 4–6, 11–13, and 18–20 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson, in view of Ishii et al. (US 2009/0253506 A1; “Ishii”).
As per claim 4, Lawson discloses:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 3, wherein:
the scene includes at least one object (e.g., Fig. 5);
Lawson does not expressly disclose but Ishii teaches:
the second image generating parameter includes information representing a region to be extracted from the scene, the scene being determined in reference to information regarding a position of the object (e.g., [0168]–[0170]); and
the recording image generating section generates as the recording image data an image inside the region represented by the information included in the second image generating parameter (e.g., [0168]–[0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the parameter used in Lawson to include the parameter of Ishii and to modify the recording image generating section of Lawson to include generating in accordance with such parameter, as taught by Ishii. One would have been motivated to do so in order to tailor the spectator video for a device with a small viewing screen.
As per claim 5, Lawson discloses
The image generating apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
the scene includes a plurality of objects (Lawson, e.g., Fig. 5);
Lawson does not expressly disclose but Ishii teaches:
the recording image generating section generates the image data of the scene from which at least one of the objects in the scene is extracted, as the recording image data, based on the second image generating parameter (Ishii, e.g., [0168]–[0170]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the parameter used in Lawson to include the parameter of Ishii and to modify the recording image generating section of Lawson to include generating in accordance with such parameter, as taught by Ishii. One would have been motivated to do so in order to tailor the spectator video for a device with a small viewing screen.
As per claim 6, Lawson/Ishii further teach:
The image generating apparatus according to claim 5, wherein one of the objects is a character object included in the scene (Lawson, e.g., Fig. 5, and Ishii, e.g., Fig. 11 and [0168]–[0170]).
As per claims 11–13 and 18–20, these claims contain language similar to claims 4–6 as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, and for reasons similar to those discussed above, claims 11–13 and 18–20 are also rejected under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable over Lawson and Ishii.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 JACOB C. COPPOLA whose telephone number is (571)270-3922. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30-1:30.
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, Andrew J. Fischer can be reached at (571) 272-6779. 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.
/JACOB C. COPPOLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights