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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 3, 12-14, 20-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 20-21 recite “after acquiring distance measurement information of a plurality of positions in the imaging target region with a smaller number of times of imaging than the number of times of imaging in the imaging method, perform control of causing the imaging apparatus to execute the imaging by means of the imaging method based on the distance measurement information”. It is not clear what this sentence means. For example, it is not clear what “with a smaller number of times of imaging than the number of times of imaging in the imaging method”.
Claims 3 recites “wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the designation for the form other than the rectangular form is received as the form of the imaging target region, generate the second image data representing a rectangular image”. It is not clear what is meant by generating a second image representing a rectangular image. Generating a composite or panoramic image is dependent on stitching overlapping regions of images, and it would seem that the resulting image is based on the positional relationship between the plurality of partial images. It is not clear how the resulting composite image takes the form of a rectangular image if the partial images are not of a rectangular form.
Dependent claim 12 recites “generate second correspondence information in which the first image data and a control value of the revolution mechanism at a time of imaging at which the first image data is obtained are associated with each other.” It is not clear what this second correspondence information refers to.
Dependent claim 13 recites “wherein the processor is configured to output a control value corresponding to designated first image data among the plurality of pieces of first image data based on the second correspondence information”. It is not clear what this second correspondence information refers to. It is also not clear how this relates to a control value.
Dependent claim 14 recites “wherein the processor is configured to extract the first image data based on a degree of approximation of a designated control value from among the plurality of pieces of first image data based on the second correspondence information”. It is not clear what the second correspondence information refers to. It is not clear what is meant by extracting a first image based on a degree of approximation of a designated control value, nor how this is related to a second correspondence information.
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 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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-6, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over D11.
With regard to claim 1, D1 teach a processor (see fig. 1, ¶ 25); wherein the processor is configured to determine an imaging method for imaging a designated imaging target region a plurality of times according to a form of the imaging target region, in which the imaging method includes acquiring an imaging angle of view and an imaging position in the imaging, acquire a plurality of pieces of first image data obtained by imaging in the imaging method (see ¶¶ 16, 36, figs. 3, 6-7: capturing a plurality of images by gradually changing the range or direction, implicit that angle is changed2), and generate second image data related to the imaging target region by performing, onto the plurality of pieces of first image data, resize processing in a reduction direction and combining processing (see ¶¶ 16, 20, 37: performing image reduction on the captured images and generating a composite image).
Note that D1 anticipates changing the angle of the camera to capture a plurality of images (see ¶¶ 16, 36, figs. 3, 6-7). Alternatively, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that it is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date to capture plurality of images at different angles in order to generate a composite or panoramic image. The motivation would have been to capture a wider field of view by changing the viewing angle of the camera as opposed to simply translating or physically moving the camera in a particular direction.
With regard to claim 2, D1 teach information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to receive designation for a form other than a rectangular form as the form of the imaging target region (see figs. 3, 6-7, ¶ 36: images may be captured while moving the camera in one direction, for example, horizontal direction; see ¶¶ 67-68: loop image).
With regard to claim 3, D1 teach information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to, in a case where the designation for the form other than the rectangular form is received as the form of the imaging target region, generate the second image data representing a rectangular image (see figs. 3, 6-7, ¶ 36: images may be captured while moving the camera in one direction, for example, horizontal direction; see fig. 3: preview image rectangular) .
With regard to claim 4, D1 teach information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate first correspondence information that associates a relationship between a first image represented by the first image data and a position of the first image in a second image represented by the second image data (see figs. 3, 6-7, ¶¶ 16, 20, 37: generating a composite image necessarily involves determining correspondence information to align the images before stitching).
With regard to claim 5, D1 teach information processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processor is configured to perform, based on the first correspondence information, control to display, on a display device, the first image represented by the first image data corresponding to designated coordinates in the second image data (see figs. 3, 6-7, ¶¶ 16, 20, 37: displaying composite image).
With regard to claim 6, D1 teach information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the resize processing is resize processing including a geometric change (see ¶¶ 37-38: reduced image by performing nearest neighbor method or bicubic method, reducing image changes the dimensions of the image which is read as geometric change).
With regard to claim 15, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 16, see discussion of claim 1.
With regard to claim 17, see discussion of claim 1. Only further limitations will be addressed. D1 teaches acquire a reduction rate in the resize processing in the reduction direction based on a size of a second image represented by the second image data (see ¶¶ 16, 20, 37: performing image reduction on the captured images and generating a composite image; see ¶¶ 38, 41: calculates the reduction amount such that the composite image would fit the preview image, see fig. 3).
With regard to claim 18,
With regard to claim 19, see discussion of claim 17.
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 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.
Claims 7-14, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D1.
With regard to claim 7, D1 teach information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the resize processing including the geometric change is processing of generating the second image data by the resize processing in the reduction direction (see ¶¶ 37-38: reduced image by performing nearest neighbor method or bicubic method, reducing image changes the dimensions of the image which is read as geometric change), but fails to explicitly teach geometric processing of giving a geometric change different from reduction and enlargement to the first image data, and the combining processing, based on the first image data. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that geometric processing such as rotation is extremely well known in the art, particularly in the field of generating panoramic or composite images. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to properly align the images where the overlap by accounting for camera rotation, tilt, yaw etc.
With regard to claim 8, D1teach information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to perform processing in an order of the geometric processing, the resize processing in the reduction direction, and the combining processing (see ¶¶ 16, 20, 37: performing image reduction on the captured images and generating a composite image, reduction performed before combining). It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to perform the rotation operation before performing reduction and combination, yielding predictable results.
With regard to claim 9, D1 fails to explicitly teach information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the geometric processing includes rotation processing. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that geometric processing such as rotation is extremely well known in the art, particularly in the field of generating panoramic or composite images. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to properly align the images where the overlap by accounting for camera rotation, tilt, yaw etc.
With regard to claim 10, D1 fails to explicitly teach information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the rotation processing includes processing based on an imaging condition under which the first image data is obtained. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that geometric processing such as rotation is extremely well known in the art, particularly in the field of generating panoramic or composite images. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to properly align the images where the overlap by accounting for camera rotation, tilt, yaw etc. The imaging condition would be the camera rotation.
With regard to claim 11, D1 fails to explicitly teach information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the rotation processing includes processing of calculating a parameter for correcting an inclination of an angle of view during telephoto imaging. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that geometric processing such as rotation based on camera parameters is extremely well known in the art, particularly in the field of generating panoramic or composite images. One skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to properly align the images where the overlap by accounting for camera rotation, tilt, yaw etc.
With regard to claim 12, D1 fails to explicitly teach information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to control a revolution mechanism that causes an imaging apparatus performing the imaging to revolve, and generate second correspondence information in which the first image data and a control value of the revolution mechanism at a time of imaging at which the first image data is obtained are associated with each other. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that generating correspondence information between plurality of images based on camera information such as yaw, tilt, etc. in order to construct a panoramic image or composite image is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to enhance the stitching of overlapping regions by taking into account camera parameters such as tilt, yaw, rotation etc.
With regard to claim 13, D1 fails to explicitly teach information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to output a control value corresponding to designated first image data among the plurality of pieces of first image data based on the second correspondence information. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that generating correspondence information between plurality of images based on camera information such as yaw, tilt, etc. in order to construct a panoramic image or composite image is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to enhance the stitching of overlapping regions by taking into account camera parameters such as tilt, yaw, rotation etc.
With regard to claim 14, D1 fails to explicitly teach information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to extract the first image data based on a degree of approximation of a designated control value from among the plurality of pieces of first image data based on the second correspondence information. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that generating correspondence information between plurality of images based on camera information such as yaw, tilt, etc. in order to construct a panoramic image or composite image is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date and one skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. The motivation would have been to enhance the stitching of overlapping regions by taking into account camera parameters such as tilt, yaw, rotation etc.
With regard to claim 20, see discussion of claim 1. Only further limitations will be addressed. D1 fails to explicitly teach after acquiring distance measurement information of a plurality of positions in the imaging target region with a smaller number of times of imaging than the number of times of imaging in the imaging method, perform control of causing the imaging apparatus to execute the imaging by means of the imaging method based on the distance measurement information. However, Examiner takes Official Notice to the fact that setting imaging parameters for imaging a target based on the distance to the target is extremely well known in the art before the effective filing date. One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate known teachings into the configuration of D1 yielding predictable and enhanced results. For example, focus setting can be modified based on distance to the target.
With regard to claim 21, see discussion of claim 20.
With regard to claim 22, see discussion of claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH YENTRAPATI whose telephone number is (571)270-7982. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AVINASH YENTRAPATI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
1 US Publication No. 2016/0381296.
2 Note: D1 does not explicitly state that the angle is changed. However, the reference D1 is a US Publication of the corresponding Japanese patent application JP2017011687 which is described in the background section of the instant application which notes that a plurality of images is acquired with different angles.
Prosecution Insights