DETAILED ACTIONNotice 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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2, however both claims recite, the second region is specified by a second user visually recognizing the VR image Therefore claim 3 doesn’t limit claim 2.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7,9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahan et al. ( US patent 9459825, “Tahan”) in view of Frankel et al. ( US patent Publication: 20160357410, “Frankel”).
Regarding claim 1, An image processing device ( Fig. 16 and Fig. 17 is a representation of client or server of Fig. 16) comprising one or more processors (element 560) and/or circuitry configured to:
perform first setting processing to set a first region that is a region rendered in higher resolution than other regions in a VR image; (Column 16, Lines 38-46: “In step 1400, the Recursive Magnifier at a client device receives a request to view an image from a user at or software running on a client device on which the image is to be displayed, or a user or software on another device. To process the request, the Recursive Magnifier establishes a first context covering the entire portion of the image that is to be viewed, which can be the whole image (step 1410). The first context, called the root context, has an associated first quantum. , First quantum is the first region Fig. 14 step 1420-1430 renders the a part of a base image in high resolution and remaining in lower resolution.)
perform second setting processing to set a second region to which preparatory processing is applied in order to perform rendering in the resolution of the first region, based on user information relating to a first user visually recognizing the VR image, (Fig. 14 step 1460, 1470) sets a second region where image will be rendered in high resolution as the user will look at the location to see an image, the first resolution of the first area and the second area is same because . Column 23, Lines 22-36: “Within the second context's region, the user can select points of interest for viewing in higher resolution than the second base image, within the resolution level range of the second context's quantum. Steps 1470, 1480, and 1490 describe receiving a request to view an area of interest within the second context in high resolution at a user indicated position, retrieving the high-resolution image, and displaying the high-resolution image” Col 5 Lines 7-10: “In an embodiment, the resolution level of the second high-resolution image is less than or equal to the maximum resolution at which the image was stored, input, or generated. (Col 2 Lines 46-50: “In an embodiment, the resolution level of the first high-resolution image is less than or equal to the maximum resolution at which the image was captured, input, or generated”) but doesn’t teach the second region is set based on information relating to a region that is set in accordance with conditions not related to the first user;
Frankel teaches, perform second setting processing to set a second region to which preparatory processing is applied in order to perform rendering in the resolution of the first region, based on user information relating to a first user visually recognizing the VR image and region information relating to a region that is set in accordance with conditions not related to the first user ( Frankel displays a panoramic image. A second user is viewing at a second location and a first user wants to see image at the second location. See Paragraph [0036]).
Tahan and Frankel are analogous as they are from eth filed of virtual image creating.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tahan to have included perform second setting processing to set a second region based on information relating to a region that is set in accordance with conditions not related to the first user as taught by Frankel.
The motivation to include Frankel is include multiple users in viewing the virtual image for enjoyment.
Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, perform generating processing to generate the VR image based on the first region and the second region. (Step 1430 and step 1480 renders or generates VR image based on the first region and the second region.).
Claim 14 is directed to a method and its steps are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 14 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Claim 15 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium (Column 30 Lines 44-53: “System 550 preferably includes a main memory 565 and may also include a secondary memory 570. The main memory 565 provides storage of instructions and data for programs executing on the processor 560, such as one or more of the functions and/or modules discussed above. It should be understood that programs stored in the memory and executed by processor 560 may be written and/or compiled according to any suitable language,”) and its elements are similar in scope and functions of the elements of the device claim 1 and therefore claim 15 is rejected with same rationales as specified in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the region information is information of a region specified by a second user visually recognizing the VR image. (Frankel, Paragraph [0036] indicates a second region where second user is looking at the VR or panoramic image and has a second user’s viewpoint information.)
The motivation is same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the region specified by the second user includes a region that the second user is visually recognizing. (Frankel, Paragraph [0036] indicates a second region where second user is looking at the VR or panoramic image.)
The motivation is same as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the region specified by the second user is specified by an operation by speech by the second user, or by an operation on a predetermined operation member by the second user. (Frankel, “[0038] indicates, each user can select a viewpoint or intended region using voice or speech. “[0038]……In the embodiment that includes intermediate viewpoints, selecting the control 96 may cause the displayed view to appear to the user as continuously scrolling along the predetermined path. It will be appreciated that control 96 may be selected by the user through a variety of methods. As a few non-limiting examples, control 96 may be selected by clicking the control on the interaction interface, pressing an arrow key on a keyboard, tracking a hand gesture on a touch screen, or receiving a voice command via a microphone. Additionally, although the control 96 is illustrated in FIG. 7 as having an arrow key form, it will be appreciated that the control 96 may take any suitable form. For example, the control 96 may take the form of a slider, a visual icon to indicate a suitable hand gesture to active the control, a voice prompt to indicate a suitable voice command to active the control, a selectable text element, or other suitable form.”)
The motivation to include the modification to use a standard method of sending of command to select a region.
Regarding claim 5, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches wherein the second user is selected from a plurality of users visually recognizing the VR image, based on attributes of each of the plurality of users. ((Frankel [0002] the second region is selected at a next viewpoint which is closer than other viewpoints from the first viewpoint. “[0002]…. display an interaction interface including a control to scroll along the predetermined path to a next location on the predetermined path, receive, via the user input device, a selection of the control, and display a second view of the three dimensional scene, the second view being a rendering of the three dimensional scene from the next location.” Second region is selected based on distance from the first user, so distance or location coordinate of each view point is the attribute of each viewpoint or user. Based on the attribute the second user is selected. Based on the attribute. )
The motivation is same as claim 1
Regarding claim 6, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the region information is information of a region that more users are visually recognizing, out of regions being visually recognized by a plurality of users who are different from the first user. (Frankel Fig.3 and {0002] discloses multiple viewpoints, each viewpoint can be considered different user. Therefore there are multiple users each having a viewpoint. A second user is viewing at a second location. See Paragraph [0036]).)
The motivation is same as claim 1
Regarding claim 7, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the region information is information of a region that is closer to a region that the first user is visually recognizing, out of regions being visually recognized by a plurality of users who are different from the first user. (Frankel [0002] the second region is selected at a next viewpoint which is closer than other viewpoints from the first viewpoint. “[0002]…. display an interaction interface including a control to scroll along the predetermined path to a next location on the predetermined path, receive, via the user input device, a selection of the control, and display a second view of the three dimensional scene, the second view being a rendering of the three dimensional scene from the next location.”)
The motivation is same as claim 1
Regarding claim 9, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the first region is set based on a region that the first user is visually recognizing. (Tahan, Col 18 Lines 37-40: “In step 1420, a user request is received to view an area of interest at a resolution level within the first quantum at a user-indicated position within the first context's region. The position can be anywhere within the first context's region.”)
Regarding claim 11, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the one or more processors and/or the circuitry is further configured to: perform acquisition processing to acquire the user information. (Tahan, Col 18 Lines 37-40 “In step 1420, a user request is received to view an area of interest at a resolution level within the first quantum at a user-indicated position within the first context's region. The position can be anywhere within the first context's region.”)
Regarding claim 12, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the user information includes information of at least one of a line-of-sight position, a word, movement of a head, and pulse, of the user. (Tahan, Col 18 Lines 37-40 “In an embodiment, the user can indicate the position of the area of interest using a pointing device (e.g., a mouse, joystick, track ball, track pad, touch screen, etc.). In an embodiment, the user can indicate the position of the area of interest using a pointing device on the displayed first base image.”)
Regarding claim 16, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the user information includes information of at least one of a line-of-sight position, a word, movement of a head, and pulse, of the user. (Tahan, Col 18 Lines41-47: “ In an embodiment, the user can indicate the position of the area of interest using a pointing device (e.g., a mouse, joystick, track ball, track pad, touch screen, etc.). In an embodiment, the user can indicate the position of the area of interest using a pointing device on the displayed first base image.”)
Regarding claim 17, Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, wherein the user information includes information of at least one of a line-of-sight position, a word, movement of a head, and pulse, of the user. (Tahan, Col 18 Lines41-47 “In an embodiment, the user can indicate the position of the area of interest using a pointing device (e.g., a mouse, joystick, track ball, track pad, touch screen, etc.). In an embodiment, the user can indicate the position of the area of interest using a pointing device on the displayed first base image.”)
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahan as modified by Frankel and further in view of Habestroh et al. ( US Patent publication: US 20190213423, “Habestroh”)
Regarding claim 8, Tahan as modified by Frankel doesn’t expressly teach, wherein the region information is information of a region in which an event will occur in virtual space that the VR image represents.
However, Haberstroh teaches, the region information is information of a region in which an event will occur in virtual space that the VR image represents (“[0019] Some embodiments of a method may include: receiving, from a virtual reality (VR) device, a request corresponding to a virtual view associated with a camera position at a site for an event; and sending, to the VR device, information for rendering the virtual view associated with the camera position at the site for the event, comprising: video information from at least one camera at the camera position, region information regarding at least one geometric region of the site for the event.”)
Tahan as modified by Frankel and Haberstroh are analogous as they are from the field VR images.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tahan as modified by Frankel to have included , the region information is information of a region in which an event will occur in virtual space that the VR image represents as taught by Haberstroh.
The motivation to include the modification is that user can select an region based on the event.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tahan as modified by Frankel and further in view of Vember et al. ( US Patent publication: ( US patent Publication: US 20180300098, “Vember”)
Regarding claim 10, Tahan as modified by Frankel doesn’t expressly teach, , wherein the VR image is a panorama image.
However, Vember teaches, a VR image is a panoramic image. (“ [0237] Some embodiments may advantageously provide social 360 video rendering for multiple HMDs for VR applications. For example, some embodiments may decode multiply for one GPU to support multiple users, where a hardware decode may be based on each user's orientation to render a field of view (FOV) portion of a 360-degree frame. Multiple hardware decode units may support multiple HMDs on a single stream for social VR (e.g. a 360 video).”)
Tahan and Frankel and Vember are analogous as they are from the field of virtual image generation.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tahan s modified by Frankel to have included the VR image as a panoramic image as taught by Frankel.
The motivation to include the modification is to display virtual image of an entire area of an entity.
Regarding claim 13,: Tahan as modified by Frankel teaches, the image processing device according to claim 1; and a display configured to display the VR image but doesn’t expressly teach that these elements are part of a head mounted display device.
Vember teaches A head mounted display device comprising similar structure of the image processing device according to claim 1 and display devices 1106 and 1104.
Tahan and Frankel and Vember are analogous as they are from the field of virtual image generation.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Tahan s modified by Frankel to have included the image processing device according to claim 1 in a head mounted display device and use the display devices of Vember to display the output generated by the image processing device.
The motivation to include the modification is to display virtual image in a mobile platform for easier viewing by the users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tapas Mazumder whose telephone number is (571)270-7466. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM PST.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/TAPAS MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights