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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-10 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. Claims 1, 9 and 10 each recite generation of a virtual viewpoint video from a plurality of viewpoints but later discloses an avatar model rendered based on a single virtual viewpoint without specifying which viewpoint from the plurality of viewpoints is used to render the avatar model. Therefore independent claims 1, 9 and 10, and dependent claims 2-8, are indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations in claims 1-8 that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations 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: “virtual viewpoint video generation unit”, “posture estimation unit”, “avatar generation unit”, “image generation unit” and “correction unit” recited in claim 1.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Therefore claim limitation “virtual viewpoint video generation unit”, “posture estimation unit”, “avatar generation unit”, “image generation unit” and “correction unit” recited in claim 1, and in dependent claims 2-8 by dependency, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because this claim contain a program, which is non-statutory subject matter because a program must be recited as “A non-transitory computer-readable medium encoded with a program…” in order to be considered statutory subject matter. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Therefore, such claimed elements are software per se, which fails to fall within a statutory category of invention and necessitates the rejection of claim 10.
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 1, 2, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa (US Patent 10,969,861) in view of Kamachi (US Patent 6,954,906).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa teaches an information processing device (Fig. 3: 12) comprising:
a virtual viewpoint video generation unit that uses shooting data of a subject captured from a plurality of viewpoints to generate a virtual viewpoint video of the subject when the subject is viewed from a virtual viewpoint (col. 2 lines 7-16);
a posture estimation unit that uses the shooting data to estimate a posture of the subject (col. 2 lines 7-16);
an avatar generation unit that generates an avatar model (col. 14 lines 46-65) having a 3D shape of the subject (col. 3 lines 43-47) corresponding to the posture, renders the avatar model based on the virtual viewpoint, and generates an avatar (col. 14 lines 45-65);
an image comparison unit that extracts a difference between the virtual viewpoint video and the avatar (col. 2 lines 12-16). However, Hasegawa fails to teach a correction unit that corrects the virtual viewpoint video based on the difference.
Kamachi teaches a correction unit that corrects the virtual viewpoint video based on the difference (col. 15 lines 5-15). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the virtual viewpoints of Hasegawa with the viewpoint correction of Kamachi because this modification would reduce viewer fatigue caused by display errors after viewpoint changes through correcting offset posture position of displayed avatars from the viewpoint.
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa teaches wherein the image comparison unit identifies a positional relationship between the plurality of viewpoints and the subject, and selectively extracts the difference in the portion (col. 2 lines 12-16). However, Hasegawa fails to teach wherein the image comparison unit identifies a portion to be corrected based on a positional relationship and the difference in the portion to be corrected. Kamachi teaches wherein the image comparison unit identifies a portion to be corrected based on a positional relationship the difference in the portion to be corrected (col. 15 lines 5-15). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the virtual viewpoints of Hasegawa with the viewpoint correction of Kamachi because this modification would reduce viewer fatigue caused by display errors after viewpoint changes through correcting offset posture position of displayed avatars from the viewpoint.
Regarding claim 9, all limitations of claim 9 are rejected in the same manner as claim 1 including Hasegawa teaching an information processing method executed by a computer (col. 2 lines 7-27).
Regarding claim 10, all limitations of claim 10 are rejected in the same manner as claim 1 including Hasegawa teaching a program for causing a computer to execute a process (col. 2 lines 28-39).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-10, and 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 Said Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-2931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-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.
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.
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights