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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2024 have been made record of and considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase "such as" renders the claim ambiguous because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase (acceleration) are required or simply illustrative. Appropriate clarification is respectfully requested.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: considering the specification (see [0028]), the limitation appears to contain a typo – “based on image frames of the target video having been captured within the reference radius range for a reference time period, the image selection module selects a corresponding position as the static reference position, and selects the selected image frame within the reference radius range.” The examiner respectfully suggests correcting to: “based on image frames of the target video having been captured within the reference area range for a reference time period, the image selection module selects a corresponding position as the static reference position, and selects the selected image frame within the reference radius range.” Additionally, “corresponding position” does not identify which position among the capture positions is selected. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The term “relatively small dynamic movement” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively small” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification simply states, “When it is confirmed that the position of the camera remains within a reference area range for a reference time period [0043],” which does not define the range of “relatively small.” Appropriate correction is required.
The term “relatively high definition” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification simply states, “select an image frame with a relatively high definition as the selected image frame,” which does not define “relatively high.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 limitation(s) is/are:
“video reception module,” “dynamic information reception module,” “image selection module” in claims 1-7 and 9.
“position calculation module” in claim 2.
“position display module” in claim 8.
“position reception module” in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 2017/0237904 A1), and in further view of Nomura (US 2007/0140674 A1).
Consider claim 1, Takahashi discloses a method of selecting a high-definition image frame of a video by using dynamic information, for extracting high-definition image frames from among image frames included in a video by using a mobile device comprising a camera (¶37-38; “smartphone 201, which is an example of an image processing apparatus”) configured to capture a video (¶33; digital camera 101; ¶35; “The CPU 105 records a moving image obtained as described above in the memory card 113 as a moving image file 114”) and a dynamic sensor configured to measure dynamic information such as an acceleration of the camera (¶35; “attitude sensor 104 acquires attitude information (camera attitude information) of the digital camera 101 during image capturing”), the method comprising:
an operation (a), performed by a video reception module, of receiving and storing a target video in a form of a video captured by the camera of the mobile device (¶38, 41; “The smartphone 201 includes a CPU 202 and a memory 203… an input unit 208 and a SSD (Solid State Drive) 209. The SSD 209 can store therein a moving image file 210 and a slow shutter image 211 (still image file)”);
an operation (b), performed by a dynamic information reception module, of receiving and storing, as dynamic information, measurements from the dynamic sensor of the mobile device respectively corresponding to timestamps of the target video (¶35, 45-46; “attitude sensor 104 acquires attitude information (camera attitude information) of the digital camera 101 during image capturing. The CPU 105 records the camera attitude information in the moving image file 114 as metadata. The moving image file 114 is thereby associated with the camera attitude information.”); and
an operation (c), performed by an image selection module, of selecting, as a selected image frame, at least one image frame corresponding to a timestamp with a relatively small dynamic movement of the camera, from among image frames of the target video (¶45-46, 49; “CPU 202 detects, while referencing to the camera attitude information, frames in which a significant change occurred in the camera attitude at the time of capturing the frames (frames captured at a timing at which the amount of change in the attitude is greater than or equal to a third threshold value) as camera shake frames… CPU 202 excludes the detected camera shake frames from processing target frames”; ¶50-52; “the frames that were not excluded by the above processing are finally singled out [selected] as processing target frames”; ¶63, 74-75; “the user can, through operation of the changeless area frame selection slider 1806, select a frame with little camera shake”).
In related art, Nomura further supports an operation (b), performed by a dynamic information reception module, of receiving and storing, as dynamic information, measurements from the dynamic sensor of the mobile device respectively corresponding to timestamps of the target video (Nomura ¶76; “controller 10, synchronizing with a sampling period of the frame 70, receives the angular velocity detection signal from each of the gyrosensors 31 and 32, calculates the hand shake amount for each of the X axis and Y axis, and correlates it to the frame, or appends it to the frame and stores it”; ¶111-112, 158); and
an operation (c), performed by an image selection module, of selecting, as a selected image frame, at least one image frame corresponding to a timestamp with a relatively small dynamic movement of the camera, from among image frames of the target video (Nomura ¶98, 100; “only frames 70A, of the sequentially acquired frames 70, positioned within the hand shake tolerance ranges C are displayed, and a moving image display suppressing the shake is carried out”; ¶111-112, 123-126; “selecting and displaying only the frames 70 of which the angular velocities (OX, coy and (OZ all lie within the angular velocity tolerance range E, the moving image reproduction display with the unnoticeable shake is realized.”; ¶154, 158-160).
Takashi’s goal is to allow a user to select a frame with little camera shake (Takahashi ¶74-75). As stated by Takahashi, “In general, significant changes occur in the camera attitude at the start and end of moving image capture due to operation of buttons and the like to provide a start instruction and an end instruction. For this reason, it is highly likely that blurring occurs in the frames corresponding to such periods (Takahashi ¶45).” Similarly, Nomura’s goal is a moving image reproduction display with no shake by “select[ing] the frames 70 with no shake (Nomura ¶154).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the shake detection/correction method of Nomura into the low-motion frame selection of Takahashi to predictably yield a method for selecting a clear target image.
Consider claim 2, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, discloses the claimed invention further comprising an operation (d), performed by a position calculation module, of calculating positions where the target video has been captured, in correspondence to the timestamps of the target video by using the measurements from the dynamic sensor received by the dynamic information reception module (Takahashi ¶35; Nomura ¶76-81, 87-88, 98-102),
wherein, in the operation (c), the selected image frame is selected in correspondence to the positions calculated by the position calculation module (Nomura ¶76-81, 87-88, 98-102).
Consider claim 3, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, discloses the claimed invention wherein, in the operation (c), the image selection module selects, as at least one static reference position, a position where the target video has been captured in a static state, by using the measurements from the dynamic sensor, and selects at least one selected image frame from among image frames that have been captured within a reference radius range centered on the at least one static reference position (Takahashi ¶35; Nomura ¶21, 86-90, 101-102, 107, 112).
Consider claim 4, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, discloses the claimed invention wherein, in the operation (c), based on image frames of the target video having been captured within the reference radius range for a reference time period, the image selection module selects a corresponding position as the static reference position, and selects the selected image frame within the reference radius range (Takahashi ¶35; Nomura ¶21, 86-93, 101-102, 107, 112).
Consider claim 5, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, discloses the claimed invention wherein, in the operation (c), based on the measurements from the dynamic sensor for a timestamp are within a reference velocity and a reference angular velocity, the image selection module selects, as the static reference position, a capturing position corresponding to the timestamp (Takahashi ¶35; Nomura ¶75-81, 98, 118-121, 124-127, 149-151).
Consider claim 6, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, discloses the claimed invention wherein, in the operation (b), the dynamic information reception module receives, as the dynamic information, measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) as the measurements from the dynamic sensor (Takahashi ¶33-35; Nomura ¶75, 118, 158).
Consider claim 7, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, discloses the claimed invention wherein, in the operation (c), the image selection module compares definitions of a plurality of selected image frames that are selected based on a dynamic movement, and selects, as the final selected image frame, a selected image frame with a relatively high definition (Takahashi ¶63-66, 72-75; Nomura ¶98, 110, 120-122, 154-155).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi, in view of Nomura, as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Seo (US 2014/0378115 A1).
Consider claim 8, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, fails to specifically disclose the claimed invention further comprising an operation (e), performed by a position display module, of displaying the positions where the target video has been captured, on a display device in chronological order.
In related art, Seo discloses an operation (e), performed by a position display module, of displaying the positions where the target video has been captured, on a display device in chronological order (Seo FIG. 9, ¶47, 118, 150-151; FIG. 13 ¶172-173; FIG. 21).
Takashi’s goal is to allow a user to select a frame with little camera shake (Takahashi ¶74-75). As stated by Takahashi, “In general, significant changes occur in the camera attitude at the start and end of moving image capture due to operation of buttons and the like to provide a start instruction and an end instruction. For this reason, it is highly likely that blurring occurs in the frames corresponding to such periods (Takahashi ¶45).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the map-based display architecture of Seo into the position calculation and frame selection of Takahashi, as modified by Nomura, to display Takahashi’s and Nomura’s computed position data to the user.
Consider claim 9, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura and Seo, discloses the claimed invention further comprising an operation (f), performed by a position reception module, of receiving, as a query position, one of the positions where the target video has been captured (Takahashi ¶38, 46, 75-76; Nomura ¶86-90, 96, 106-107; Seo ¶59, 149-151, 179),
wherein, in the operation (c), the image selection module performs a process of selecting the selected image frame from among image frames of the target video that have been captured within an examination radius range centered on the query position (Takahashi ¶38, 46, 75-76; Nomura ¶86-90, 96, 106-107; Seo ¶57-59, 149-151, 179).
Consider claim 10, Takahashi, as modified by Nomura and Seo, discloses the claimed invention wherein, in the operation (f), the query position is received in a manner of designating one of the positions where the target video has been captured, which are displayed on the display device by the operation (e) (Takahashi ¶38, 46, 75-76; Nomura ¶86-90, 96, 103-107; Seo ¶57-59, 149-151, 179).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2018/0227487 A1 discloses methods for creating a motion picture.
US 2007/0071346 A1 discloses a method for determining direction of blur.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights