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
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 1-19 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.
1) Claim 1, lines 6, 7, 8; the recitation “the head mount display” should be recited as “the head mount display device”.
2) Claim 8, lines 9, 10, 11; the recitation “the head mount display” should be recited as “the head mount display device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
3) Claim 15, lines 12, 13, 14; the recitation “the head mount display” should be recited as “the head mount display device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
4) Claim 6, twice; the recitation “the head mount display” should be recited as “the head mount display device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
5) Claim 13, twice; the recitation “the head mount display” should be recited as “the head mount display device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
6) Claim 19, twice; the recitation “the head mount display” should be recited as “the head mount display device”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
7) Claim 2, line 1; “An image processing method” should be recited as “The image processing method”
8) Claims 3-7, line 1; “The method” should be recited as “The image processing method”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baldwin et al (US Pub 20250191106 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Baldwin et al teaches an image processing method comprising: receiving at least two consecutive image frames captured live by an image capture apparatus, each of the at least two image frames including a subject wearing a head mount display device (Paragraph 0033);
generating a first bounding box (1316 in Fig.13) surrounding the head mount display device using orientation information obtained from the head mount display (Fig. 13; Paragraph 0045, 0091);
generating a second bounding box (1318 in Fig.13) surrounding the head mount display using an object detection model trained to identify the head mount display (Fig. 13; Paragraph 0088-0091);
calculating a difference indicator by comparing differences, on a pixel by pixel basis between the generated first and second bounding boxes (Fig. 13; Paragraph 0088-0091);
selecting the first bounding box when it is determined that the difference indicator exceeds a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0072, 0087);
providing coordinates representing the first bounding box to identify a region within the images to be replaced by a region of a precaptured image that is occluded by the head mount display device (Paragraph 0033, 0052, 0055, 0067).
Regarding Claims 2, 9, 16, Baldwin et al teaches the image processing method wherein generating the first bounding box is performed using a camera model characterizing a relationship between the head mount display device in three dimensions and a two-dimensional image projection of the head mount display device. (Paragraph 0033, 0039, 0064, 0072).
Regarding Claims 3, 10, 17, Baldwin et al teaches the method further comprising: using the provided coordinates to replace the identified region with a corresponding region of the precaptured image; and generating a composite image that includes the subject appearing without the head mount display device and including the replaced region from the precaptured image. (Paragraph 0033, 0052, 0055, 0067).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, 18, Baldwin et al teaches the method further comprising: aligning a first coordinate system associated with an image capture device with a second coordinate system associated with the head mount display device; and using the aligned coordinate systems in replacing a portion of the image frame that includes the head mount display device with a region of a precaptured image of the subject. (Paragraph 0033, 0052, 0055, 0067).
Regarding Claim 8, the apparatus Claim 8 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Regarding Claim 15, the apparatus Claim 15 is rejected for same reason as the method Claim 1, since claim limitations are same in both claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7, 12-14, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
It is noted that any citation to specific pages, columns, figures, or lines in the prior art references any interpretation of the references should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331-33, 216 USPQ 1038-39 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular paragraphs/columns and line numbers or figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims.
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIJAY SHANKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7682. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am- 6 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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 571-270-7230. 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.
VIJAY SHANKAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2624
/VIJAY SHANKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights