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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3,4,6,7 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.
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 13, 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because “computer readable storage medium” can be comprised of transitory subject matter.
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 5, 9, 10 are 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.
Regarding claim 5, the wording of the claim is unclear. It is unclear how “the second viewing angle range” can be recorded as the “first viewing angle range”. Additionally, the limitation: “capturing again, the second viewing angle range adjusted by the user” is unclear. It is unclear whether the second viewing angle range is being captured or whether an adjusted second viewing angle range is being captured. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 9, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “the part of the image of two adjacent frames” and it is unclear what portion of the image, and in which frames the portion of the image is being corrected. It is unclear as to whether the color difference is between the two frames or between “the part” and the remainder of the image. Additionally, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the part” and “the image”. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear as to what is meant by “picture difference” and there is a lack of antecedent basis for “second difference”. What is the “second difference”? It is unclear as to whether the picture difference is based on the “pre-loading analysis on a surround angle”, as the claim begins with “performing a pre-loading analysis on a surround angle of the video data”. Clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Alfaro (US 2022/0217322).
Regarding claim 1, Alfaro discloses a video synthesis method based on surround viewing angle ([0024, 0067]), applied to a client and comprising:
After receiving video data pushed by a server ([0040-0042] video capture data is transmitted to a server and to external devices), parsing the video data according to a first viewing angle range ([0024, 0188] “first perspective”) predetermined in the video data, and presenting an image (fig. 13);
After receiving a user’s viewing angle adjustment input, determining a second viewing angle range adjusted by the user, according to the viewing angle adjustment input ([0024, 0193], fig. 13 The user can change perspectives and viewing angles);
Performing, according to the second viewing angle range, an adaptive frame interpolation ([0054]) processing to obtain an adaptive image that meets the second viewing angle range, and performing a presentation based on the adaptive image ([0054, 0086, 0095, 0099] Adaptive interpolation is performed to make transitions between perspectives smoother).
Regarding claim 8, Alfaro discloses a video synthesis method based on surround view ([0024], fig. 4), applied to a server and comprising:
After receiving a data packet which is transmitted by a shooting end through a signal, parsing the data packet to obtain a video data ([0041, 0087-0089, 0124] Video data captured from an image sensor is transmitted);
Determining a first viewing angle range for presenting the video data according to a shooting method ([0024, 0065-0070, 0093], fig. 4, fig. 9 first viewing angle/perspective is dependent on the capture method/settings in regards to image sensors selected, pivot axis, etc.); and
When receiving a video request, pushing the video data to a corresponding client ([0041, 0095, 0156-0158], fig. 9, fig. 13 “upload”).
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL HYUN HONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached at (571)272-4195. 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.
/MICHAEL H HONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights