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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 7th August, 2026. Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 17-18 have been amended. Claims 4-5 and 16 have been cancelled. Claims 19-23 have been added. Claims 1-3, 6-15, and 17-23 remain rejected in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claims 1 and 17-18, filed on 7th August, 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 regarding that the prior art does not teach "a second composited image in which an image based on a second real image and the first composited image are composited is generated." The proposed amended claim limitations have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that "there has been no showing of any indication of motivation in the applied documents, or any other rationale, that would lead one having ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the above-discussed claimed features", the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Therefore, applicant’s remark cannot be considered persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the prior art does not teach "a second composited image in which an image based on a second real image and the first composited image are composited is generated" as recited in Claim 1, these limitations are taught by Wright. In particular, Wright teaches the following:
Paragraph [0050]: discloses mixed-reality image 700, interpreted to be a first composited image, being presented to the user as an overlay on a visible-light image, interpreted to be a second real image (i.e., a second captured image of the real-world after the first one was taken, in physical space 100; and
FIG. 14 teaches mixed-reality image 1400, interpreted to be a second composited image, comprising mixed-reality image 700, interpreted to be a first composited image, on real-world wall 108D and the captured real-world environment when mixed-reality image 700 was taken.
Regarding arguments to Claims 2-3, 6-15, and 19-23, they directly/indirectly depend on independent Claims 1 and 17-18 respectively. Applicant does not argue anything other than independent Claims 1 and 17-18. The limitations in those claims, in conjunction with combination, was previously established as explained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 17-18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright.
Regarding Claim 1, Wright discloses an imaging device (Wright, [0019]: teaches an augmented-reality (AR) device that includes an on-board camera <read on imaging device>) comprising:
an image sensor configured to capture a real object and output a real image (Wright, [0019]: teaches the on-board camera <read on image sensor> of the AR device obtaining a visible-light image <read on real image> of a physical space that is presented <read on output> on its display; [0022]: teaches the physical space 100 including a plurality of real-world objects 108 <read on real objects> that are within the field of view (FOV) 106 of the HMD 104 as shown in FIG. 1); and
PNG
media_image1.png
291
410
media_image1.png
Greyscale
one or more processors and/or circuitry configured to(1) execute acquisition processing of acquiring information of a virtual object (Wright, [0084]: teaches controller 1504 of HMD 1500, which is the AR device, including a logic machine; [0087]: teaches logic machine 1602 including components <read on circuitry> and "one or more processors configured to execute software instructions"; [0024]: teaches HMD 104 visually presenting "a plurality of augmented-reality objects 200 (e.g., 200A, 200B, 200C, 200D) <read on acquired information of virtual objects> that collectively form <read on acquisition processing> an augmentation image 202"; Note: "acquiring information of a virtual object" is being interpreted as "obtaining a virtual object"),
(2) execute generating processing of generating a virtual image on a basis of the information of the virtual object acquired in the acquisition processing (Wright, [0024]: teaches HMD 104 visually presenting <read on generated processing> a plurality of augmented-reality objects 200 <read on information of virtual objects> (e.g., 200A, 200B, 200C, 200D) that collectively form an augmentation image 202 of virtual objects <read on generated virtual image> and physical objects; Note: the plurality of virtual objects is being interpreted as a virtual image), and
(3) execute compositing processing of compositing the real image and the virtual image to generate a composited image (Wright, [0043]: teaches HMD 104 visually presenting an image collection prompt 600 as shown in FIG. 6, where the user can capture an image of physical space 100 (i.e., the visible-light image <read on real image>) with virtual augmentation (i.e., the augmentation image <read on virtual image>); FIG. 6 teaches a composed image view <read on composited image> of the visible-light image and the augmentation image prior to the user taking a snapshot; Note: it should be noted that it is common in the art for AR devices to perform real-time updates for both capturing real-world images and virtual object positioning), wherein
PNG
media_image2.png
293
413
media_image2.png
Greyscale
in the compositing processing, a first composited image in which part of a first real image and the virtual image are composited is generated (Wright, FIG. 7 teaches HMD 104 compositing a mixed-reality image 700 <read on first composited image> that is a composition of augmentation image 202 <read on virtual image> and the visible-light image of physical space 100, which includes the FOV of the user's perspective <read on part of first real image>; Note: the mixed-reality image itself is being interpreted as the "first composited image"), and
PNG
media_image3.png
293
415
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a second composited image in which an image based on a second real image and the first composited image are composited is generated (Wright, [0050]: teaches mixed-reality image 700 <read on first composited image> being presented to the user as an overlay on a visible-light image <read on second real image> in physical space 100; FIG. 14 teaches mixed-reality image 1400 <read on second composited image> comprising mixed-reality image 700 <read on first composited image> on real-world wall 108D and the captured real-world environment when mixed-reality image 700 was taken).
PNG
media_image4.png
294
419
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 17, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a control method. As shown in the rejection, Wright discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright discloses a control method of an imaging device (Wright, [0098]: teaches "a method for controlling an augmented-reality device" that comprises a visible-light camera <read on imaging device>), the control method comprising:…
Thus, Claim 17 is met by Wright according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the imaging device corresponds to a control method.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites the limitations that are similar in scope to Claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer-readable medium. As shown in the rejection, Wright discloses the limitations of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores a program (Wright, [0089]: teaches storage machine 1604 being non-volatile <read on non-transitory computer readable medium>; [0091]: teaches logic machine 1602 and storage machine 160 being integrated together to execute application programs), wherein
the program causes a computer to execute a control method of an imaging device (Wright, [0098]: teaches "a method for controlling an augmented-reality device" that comprises a visible-light camera <read on imaging device>), the control method comprising:…
Thus, Claim 18 is met by Wright according to the mapping presented in the rejection of Claim 1, given the imaging device corresponds to a non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Regarding Claim 22, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein the second composited image is generated by
placing the first composited image in a partial region of an image based on the second real image (Wright, FIG. 14 teaches mixed-reality image 700 <read on first composited image> being included and positioned in mixed-reality image 1400 <read on second composited image> (i.e., the real-world wall <read on partial region of image> in mixed-reality image 1400) due to mixed-reality image 700 being in the user's FOV when the newest mixed-reality image is taken).
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 2-3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Matsunaga (US 20170142344 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 2, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
the second real image is a real image including a main object (Wright, [0050]: teaches mixed-reality image 700 being presented to the user as an overlay on a visible-light image <read on second real image> in physical space 100; [0036]: teaches HMD 104 identifying "a plurality of surfaces 500 (e.g., 500A, 500B, 500C, 500D) of the physical space 100," where "the plurality of identified surfaces 500 include walls of the physical space 100, as well surfaces of objects <read on main object> in the physical space 100"; Note: Paragraph [0036] of the Specification states that "the term “main object” refers to an object that should be included in the shooting angle of view with a suitable composition"), and wherein
the first real image is a real image [[in which a range that differs from a range of the second real image is captured]] (Wright, FIG. 7 teaches HMD 104 compositing a mixed-reality image 700 that is a composition of augmentation image 202 and the visible-light image of physical space 100 <read on first real image>, which includes the FOV of the user's perspective).
However, Wright does not expressly disclose
the first real image is a real image in which a range that differs from a range of the second real image is captured.
Matsunaga discloses
the first real image is a real image in which a range that differs from a range of the second real image is captured (Matsunaga, [0071]: teaches a subject image being captured at both an enlarged state at magnification δ>1 <read on range of first real image> and reduced state at magnification δ<1 <read on range of second real image>, where both magnifications differ <read on differing ranges>).
Matsunaga is analogous art with respect to Wright because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely performing image composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a camera control unit that performs magnification calculations as taught by Matsunaga into the teaching of Wright. The suggestion for doing so would allow for the system to determine optimal magnification values between differing focal magnifications, thereby allowing for detected subjects to be in view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsunaga with Wright.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Wright and Matsunaga discloses the imaging device of Claim 2. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
the first real image is a real image in which an entirety of a range that the imaging device is capable of capturing is captured (Wright, FIG. 1 teaches capturing an image <read on real image> of the real-world environment within the FOV 106 <read on entirety of range> of the HMD).
Regarding Claim 13, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
[[in a case where a zoom magnification of capturing becomes smaller than a first threshold value in order to include a first object and a second object in a same angle of view, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute]]
compositing determination processing of determining that the second composited image is generated in the compositing processing (Wright, [0061]: teaches "a size of the mixed-reality image 700 <read on generated second composited image> may be determined based on a distance between the identified surface (e.g., the real-world wall 108D) and the user 102").
However, Wright does not expressly disclose
in a case where a zoom magnification of capturing becomes smaller than a first threshold value in order to include a first object and a second object in a same angle of view, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute…
Matsunaga discloses
in a case where a zoom magnification of capturing becomes smaller than a first threshold value in order to include a first object and a second object in a same angle of view, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute (Matsunaga, [0071]: teaches changing magnification
δ
<read on zoom magnification> to
δ
<
1
<read on smaller than first threshold value>, where "the angle of view <read on same angle of view> widens, resulting in a small magnification" such that "the subject image is captured in a reduced state"; [0052]: teaches calculating the subject distance of each object <read on first and second objects> in a generated composite image)…
Matsunaga is analogous art with respect to Wright because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely performing image composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a camera control unit that performs magnification calculations as taught by Matsunaga into the teaching of Wright. The suggestion for doing so would allow for the system to determine optimal magnification values between differing focal magnifications, thereby allowing for detected subjects to be in view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsunaga with Wright.
Claims 6-7, 9, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Naples et al. (US 20170309079 A1), hereinafter referenced as Naples.
Regarding Claim 6, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
[[in a case in which a first object and a second object cannot be simultaneously included in a same angle of view of the image sensor, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute]]
compositing determination processing of determining that the second composited image is generated in the compositing processing (Wright, [0044]: teaches an image collection instruction 604 <read on compositing determination processing> that instructs the user 102 to make a snapshot of the current composed view).
However, Wright does not expressly disclose
in a case in which a first object and a second object cannot be simultaneously included in a same angle of view of the image sensor, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute…
Naples discloses
in a case in which a first object and a second object cannot be simultaneously included in a same angle of view of the image sensor, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute (Naples, [0104]: teaches object 1352 <read on first object> being within the user's FOV 1250, while objects 1302a and 1304 <read on second object> are outside the user's FOV 1250 as shown in FIG. 13; [0106]: teaches a visual aura being placed near the edge of the user's FOV as an indication of an object outside the user's FOV; [0108]: teaches out-of-view objects that are further away from the user's FOV having a visual aura that is smaller and dimmer and objects that are closer the user's FOV having a visual aura that is bigger and brighter, where the intensity of the visual auras change based on the user's proximity to the out-of-view objects)…
PNG
media_image5.png
354
533
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Naples is analogous art with respect to Wright because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely providing an augmented reality experience. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement aura effects on the edge of the user's FOV to indicate the position and direction of nearby interactable virtual objects as taught by Naples into the teaching of Wright. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to inform the user of any potential missing virtual objects of interest that can be added to their FOV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Naples with Wright.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 6. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
the first object is a first object included in the second real image (Wright, FIG. 11 teaches augmented-reality objects 200A and 200B being superimposed on top of a real-world couch <read on first object> within the user's FOV; Note: it is being interpreted that the user's view in FIG. 11 is a second real image since the user has already taken a mixed-reality image at a previous time), and wherein
PNG
media_image6.png
289
409
media_image6.png
Greyscale
the second object is the virtual object (Wright, FIG. 11 teaches augmented-reality objects 200A and 200B <read on virtual object>).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 6. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute
driving processing of performing driving to change an angle of view of the image sensor (Wright, [0073]: teaches the augmented-reality engine 1520 of HMD 1500 determining an eye gaze of the user being based on "an eye gaze direction, head orientation <read on angle of view of image sensor>, eye gaze velocity, eye gaze acceleration, change in angle of eye gaze direction, and/or any other suitable tracking information"; [0079]: teaches HMD 1500 including three gyroscopes to "indicate or measure a change in orientation of the HMD 1500 <read on change angle of view> within 3D space about three orthogonal axes (e.g., roll, pitch, and yaw)"), wherein
in a case where it is determined that the second composited image is generated in the compositing determination processing (Wright, [0044]: teaches an image collection instruction 604 <read on compositing determination processing> that instructs the user 102 to make a snapshot of the current composed view <read on second composited image>),
the angle of view is adjusted in the driving processing such that capturing is capable of performing with a composition determined on a basis of the first object (Wright, [0036]: teaches HMD 104 identifying "a plurality of surfaces 500 (e.g., 500A, 500B, 500C, 500D) <read on first object> of the physical space 100" within the user's FOV based on surface criteria <read on basis of first object>, where the surfaces are used for superimposing augmented-reality objects to generate an augmented image; [0039]: teaches determining a surface angle of "the identified surface relative to a perspective of the user eye or the gaze vector <read on angle of view>"; [0073]: teaches "the augmented-reality engine 1520 of the HMD 1500 may be configured to determine gaze directions of each of a wearer's eyes in any suitable manner based on the information received from the image sensors 1508A, 1508B," which is interpreted to be the angle of view being calculated and adjusted such that the augmented objects stay world-locked to the identified surfaces), and wherein
the image sensor performs capturing of the second real image after adjustment of the angle of view (Wright, [0077]: teaches "the relative position and/or orientation <read on angle of view> of the HMD 1500 <read on image sensor> relative to the physical space may be assessed so that augmented-reality images may be accurately displayed in desired real-world locations <read on captured second real image> with desired orientations <read on after adjustment of angle of view>").
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 9. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
in the driving processing, an orientation of the angle of view of the image sensor performing capturing is changed vertically and horizontally (Wright, [0073]: teaches determining an eye gaze of the user is based on "an eye gaze direction, head orientation <read on orientation of angle of view of image sensor>, eye gaze velocity, eye gaze acceleration, change in angle of eye gaze direction, and/or any other suitable tracking information," where the user can move their head vertically and horizontally; Note: it should be noted that the built-in cameras of the AR device move with the user's head, where Paragraph [0079] describes the HMD including three gyroscopes that indicates/measures a change in orientation of said HMD device).
Regarding Claim 19, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Wright does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 19; however, Naples discloses wherein
the virtual object is outside of an angle of view with which the second real image is captured (Naples, [0104]: teaches virtual objects 1302a and 1304a being outside the user's FOV 1250 <read on angle of view> as shown in FIG. 13; [0071]: teaches FOV images <read on second real image> being captured from the user's wearable system; Note: it is noted that it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art that the FOV images capture a sequence of images of the real world environment), and wherein
the part of the first real image corresponds to a vicinity of a position of the virtual object (Naples, [0106]: teaches the wearable system providing an indication of a virtual object being positioned outside of the user's FOV by placing a visual aura <read on vicinity> near the edge of the user's FOV).
Naples is analogous art with respect to Wright because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely providing an augmented reality experience. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement aura effects on the edge of the user's FOV to indicate the position and direction of nearby interactable virtual objects as taught by Naples into the teaching of Wright. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to inform the user of any potential missing virtual objects of interest that can be added to their FOV. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Naples with Wright.
Claims 20-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Naples et al. (US 20170309079 A1), hereinafter referenced as Naples as applied to Claim 19 above respectively, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 20160314622 A1), hereinafter referenced as Davis.
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 19. The combination of Wright and Naples does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 20; however, Davis discloses wherein the part of the first real image includes
a real background object and a real foreground object in the vicinity of the position of the virtual object (Davis, [0028]: teaches distinguishing foreground objects from background objects in captured images by image capture device 218).
Davis is analogous art with respect to Wright, in view of Naples because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely providing augmented reality experiences. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a camera system that distinguishes between foreground and background objects as taught by Davis into the teaching of Wright, in view of Naples. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine how virtual objects are to be superimposed, resulting in a more immersive experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Davis with Wright, in view of Naples.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 19. The combination of Wright and Naples does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 21; however, Davis discloses wherein
the first real image is an image in which an entirety of a range that the imaging device is capable of capturing is captured before the second real image is captured (Davis, [0013]: teaches background image 120 <read on first real image> and other real-world objects within the camera's field of view <read on entirety of range> is captured and stored as an initialization image, where the initialization image is then compared against subsequent images <read on second real image>, which is captured after the initialization image), and wherein
the first real image is stored before the first composited image is generated (Davis, FIG. 3 teaches receiving an image, such as a background image <read on first real image> by an image capture device (i.e., a camera), where it identifies foreground and background objects, where it then generates an AR image <read on first composited image>; [0013]: teaches the background image 120 being stored during the initialization phase, which occurs before generating the AR image).
PNG
media_image7.png
352
309
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Davis is analogous art with respect to Wright, in view of Naples because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely providing augmented reality experiences. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have a camera system that distinguishes between foreground and background objects as taught by Davis into the teaching of Wright, in view of Naples. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine how virtual objects are to be superimposed, resulting in a more immersive experience. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Davis with Wright, in view of Naples.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination of Wright, Naples, and Davis discloses the imaging device of Claim 21. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein the second composited image is generated by
placing the first composited image in a partial region of an image based on the second real image (Wright, FIG. 14 teaches mixed-reality image 700 <read on first composited image> being included and positioned in mixed-reality image 1400 <read on second composited image> (i.e., the real-world wall <read on partial region of image> in mixed-reality image 1400) due to mixed-reality image 700 being in the user's FOV when the newest mixed-reality image is taken).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Naples et al. (US 20170309079 A1), hereinafter referenced as Naples as applied to Claim 6 above respectively, and further in view of Ramsby et al. (US 20160210784 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ramsby.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 6. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute
[[main object determination processing of determining whether or not an object included in the real image, and the virtual object regarding which the information is acquired in the acquisition processing, are main objects, and wherein]]
the first object and the second object are objects determined to be main objects [[in the main object determination processing]] (Wright, [0024]: teaches HMD 104 visually presenting "a plurality of augmented-reality objects 200 (e.g., 200A, 200B, 200C, 200D) <read on second objects> that collectively form an augmentation image 202," where "a first virtual pillow 200A and a second virtual pillow 200B appear to be located on a real-world couch 108A, a virtual picture 200C appears to be hanging on a real-world wall 108D, and a virtual flower arrangement 200D appears to be located on a real-world end table 108B <read on first object>").
However, the combination of Wright and Naples does not expressly disclose
main object determination processing of determining whether or not an object included in the real image, and the virtual object regarding which the information is acquired in the acquisition processing, are main objects, and wherein
the first object and the second object are objects determined to be main objects in the main object determination processing.
Ramsby discloses
main object determination processing of determining whether or not an object included in the real image, and the virtual object regarding which the information is acquired in the acquisition processing, are main objects (Ramsby, [0023]: teaches an augmented reality object 106 <read on object being main object> including an associated bounding region 202, where "the bounding region 202 defines a target region of interest <read on main object determination processing> of the augmented reality object upon which FOV-inclusion calculations can be based" as shown in FIG. 2A; [0033]: teaches an obtained augmented reality object including "any suitable augmented reality content <read on acquired information of virtual object> and may be displayed as part of a graphical user interface, game, guidance or assistance system, or any suitable augmented or immersive environment"), and wherein
PNG
media_image8.png
163
144
media_image8.png
Greyscale
the first object and the second object are objects determined to be main objects in the main object determination processing (Ramsby, [0023]: teaches an augmented reality object 106 including an associated bounding region 202, where "the bounding region 202 defines a target region of interest <read on main object determination processing> of the augmented reality object upon which FOV-inclusion calculations can be based" as shown in FIG. 2A).
Ramsby is analogous art with respect to Wright, in view of Naples because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely augmenting virtual objects over a real-world environment. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have augmented reality objects include an associated bounding region as taught by Ramsby into the teaching of Wright, in view of Naples. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine a target region of interest, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramsby with Wright, in view of Naples.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Naples et al. (US 20170309079 A1), hereinafter referenced as Naples as applied to Claim 9 above respectively, and further in view of Holz (US 20200286295 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 9. The combination of Wright and Naples does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 10; however, Holz discloses wherein
in the driving processing, the composition is determined such that the first object is captured in a region other than a region in which the first composited image is composited (Holz, [0093]: teaches moving virtual objects from the perspective of the user in a virtual environment, where a tracked physical object 114 (i.e., real-world hand of the user) <read on first object> changes position <read on captured in region other than region of first composited image> in the field of view 113b of the user as shown in FIG. 5).
PNG
media_image9.png
415
386
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Holz is analogous art with respect to Wright, in view of Naples because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely augmenting virtual objects over a real-world environment. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to track moving real-world objects, such as the user's hands as taught by Holz into the teaching of Wright, in view of Naples. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine what virtual objects the user can interact with within their field of view, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Holz with Wright, in view of Naples.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Naples et al. (US 20170309079 A1), hereinafter referenced as Naples as applied to Claim 9 above respectively, and further in view of Matsunaga (US 20170142344 A1, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Wright and Naples discloses the imaging device of Claim 9. The combination of Wright and Naples does not expressly disclose the limitations of Claim 12; however, Matsunaga discloses
an optical system that is capable of changing a zoom magnification (Matsunaga, [0066]: teaches a camera control unit 100 <read on optical system> obtaining the lens type, the zoom magnification, and the focal position; [0071]: teaches a magnification correction calculation unit changing the magnification, which affects the angle of view, where the angle of view can widen or narrow), wherein
in the driving processing, the angle of view is changed by changing of the zoom magnification of the optical system (Matsunaga, [0071]: teaches changing magnification affects the angle of view, where the angle of view can widen or narrow).
Matsunaga is analogous art with respect to Wright, in view of Naples because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely performing image composition. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a camera control unit that performs magnification calculations as taught by Matsunaga into the teaching of Wright, in view of Naples. The suggestion for doing so would allow for the system to determine optimal magnification values between differing focal magnifications, thereby allowing for detected subjects to be in view. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Matsunaga with Wright, in view of Naples.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Ramsby et al. (US 20160210784 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Ramsby.
Regarding Claim 14, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
[[in a case where including a first object and a second object in a same angle of view causes an occupancy proportion of the first object or the second object in a captured image to be smaller than a second threshold value, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute]]
compositing determination processing of determining that the second composited image is generated in the compositing processing (Wright, [0061]: teaches "a size of the mixed-reality image 700 <read on generated second composited image> may be determined based on a distance between the identified surface (e.g., the real-world wall 108D) and the user 102").
However, Wright does not expressly disclose
in a case where including a first object and a second object in a same angle of view causes an occupancy proportion of the first object or the second object in a captured image to be smaller than a second threshold value, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute…
Ramsby discloses
in a case where including a first object and a second object in a same angle of view causes an occupancy proportion of the first object or the second object in a captured image to be smaller than a second threshold value, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute (Ramsby, [0049]: teaches a scaled augmented reality object <read on second object> on a physical wall <read on first object> being scaled back to an original size <read on second threshold value> in response to a user trigger <read on case>, "such as gazing at the augmented reality object for a threshold duration," where "the gaze triggers an enlarging of the diminished augmented reality object 504′ to the full-size augmented reality object 504" as shown in FIG. 8; FIG. 8 teaches the dynamically scaled augmented reality object changing size <read on occupancy proportion of second object> in response to the user's current FOV, where the FOV angle remains consistent <read on same angle of view> from
t
0
to
t
2
)…
PNG
media_image10.png
570
359
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Ramsby is analogous art with respect to Wright because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely augmenting virtual objects over a real-world environment. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have augmented reality objects include an associated bounding region as taught by Ramsby into the teaching of Wright. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine a target region of interest, thereby yielding predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ramsby with Wright.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wright et al. (US 20160379408 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Wright, in view of Maciocci et al. (US 20120249741 A1, previously cited), hereinafter referenced as Maciocci.
Regarding Claim 15, Wright discloses the imaging device of Claim 1. Additionally, Wright further discloses wherein
[[in a case in which a distance between a first object and a second object is greater than a third threshold value, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute]]
compositing determination processing of determining that the second composited image be generated in the compositing processing (Wright, [0061]: teaches "a size of the mixed-reality image 700 <read on generated second composited image> may be determined based on a distance between the identified surface (e.g., the real-world wall 108D) and the user 102").
However, Wright does not expressly disclose
in a case in which a distance between a first object and a second object is greater than a third threshold value, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute…
Maciocci discloses
in a case in which a distance between a first object and a second object is greater than a third threshold value, the one or more processors and/or circuitry further execute (Maciocci, [0197]: teaches a processor detecting an anatomical feature (i.e., arms and hands of a user) <read on first object> occluding a virtual object <read on second object>, where "the processor may capture distance data of the recognized object to formulate an inference" such that "when the processor determines that anatomical features (e.g., arm and hands) are at least a predetermined distance (twelve feet) <read on greater than third threshold value> away from the user, the processor may infer from this information that those features belong to another individual")…
Maciocci is analogous art with respect to Wright because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely providing an augmented reality experience. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the system detect anatomical features, such as hands and legs, and calculate distance data as taught by Maciocci into the teaching of Wright. The suggestion for doing so would allow the system to determine non-user objects and how those objects affect virtual objects. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Maciocci with Wright.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kasahara et al. (US 20130208005 A1) discloses an image processing device that acquires a recommended angle-of-view parameter that is then presented to a user; and
Nishimaki et al. (US 20140002329 A1) discloses generating augmented reality images that includes an angle of view that at least partially overlaps certain angle of views.
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 KARL TRUONG whose telephone number is (703)756-5915. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30 AM - 7:30 PM.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571) 272-7667. 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.
/K.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2614
/KENT W CHANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights