DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is also acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
III. Examiner Suggestion
The examiner suggests replacing “the” with “a” before “setting” on lines 1 and 2 of claim 15 and before “information” on line 4 of claim 20. The examiner also suggests replacing “the first receiving unit” with “the tally signal” after “depending on the state of” on lines 2 and 3 of claim 20. Lastly, the examiner would clarify which of the “each destination” of claim 20 is “the output destination” on lines 1 and 2 of claim 21 by, for example, reciting “whereineach output destination is at least one of a display unit and an external recording apparatus.”
The examiner understands the scope of these limitations from the claims and specification. However, to avoid a possible indefinite reading and to present the claims with more clarity, the examiner suggests the changes above.
IV. 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 1,20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (WIPO publication number: WO 2019/059150 A1) in view of Manabe et al. (US 2025/0047975 A1).
As to claim 1, Takahashi et al. teaches an image pickup apparatus (Figs. 1 and 2, HMD “10” with connected television camera “1” ([0031])) connected to an external apparatus (Fig. 3, sub-adjustment chamber “3”), comprising:
at least one memory (Fig. 3, frame buffer “157”) and at least one processor (Fig. 3, CPU “151” and image signal input “152”) which function as:
a first receiving unit configured to receive a tally signal ([0038], lines 2 and 3);
a second receiving unit configured to receive[[ a return]] video ([0037], lines 2-6); and
a control unit configured to switch a method for displaying the[[ return]] video ([0050]),
wherein the control unit switches the method for displaying the[[ return]] video, depending on a state of the tally signal in the first receiving unit ([0053]-[0065]; {Any of the adjustments described in those passages – e.g., size adjustment, luminance adjustment, belt-shaped frame augmentation, etc.}).
Claim 1 differs from Takahashi et al. in that it requires the image pickup apparatus receives and displays return video. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Manabe et al. discloses a broadcast camera system (Fig. 1, transmission system “100”) including a broadcast camera (Fig. 1, camera “101”) with a viewfinder display (Fig. 2A, display “121”) that simultaneously presents both the video captured by the broadcast camera (Figs. 4B or 4C, camera video “402”) and return video (Figs. 4B or 4C, return video “401”) relative to one another in one of plurality of different formats ([0043], lines 3-9).
In light of the teaching of Manabe et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Takahashi’s HMD to simultaneously display video captured by the associated television camera and return video from the sub adjustment chamber, where the tally signal causes adjustments in size, luminance, or color of the entire video on the display or causes the addition of a frame around the periphery of the entire video on the display. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that simultaneously displaying video captured by the associated television camera and return video allows the cameraman to assess the current broadcast video and explore different viewpoints that might be more relevant or preferred by control persons at the sub adjustment chamber based on events in the captured scene.
As to claim 20, Takahashi et al., as modified by Manabe et al., teaches the image pickup apparatus according to claim 1. The claim differs from Takahashi et al., as modified by Manabe et al., in that it requires that the method for displaying the return video depending on the state of the first receiving unit is set changeable for each output destination to which the control unit outputs the information about the method for displaying the return video.
However, as discussed above, Manabe et al. discloses that a user may change the simultaneous display format of the camera video and return video ([0043], lines 3-9; {Manabe’s display is the only output destination that receives information about the changed display format.}). In light of this teaching of Manabe et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to design Takahashi’s HMD for selection, by the camera operator, of the manner in which the tally signal causes video adjustment on the display. Although Manabe’s display format is not changed based on the state of a tally signal, the reference suggests the well-known feature of user modification of display settings, which allows the user to customize displayed video to his or her liking. In the case of Takahashi et al., a camera operator may wish to either retain the size of the display video or its color regardless of the tally signal.
As to claim 21, Takahashi et al., as modified by Manabe et al., teaches the image pickup apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the output destination is at least one of a display unit (Figs. 4B and 4C; [0043], lines 3-9) and an external recording apparatus.
V. Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claims 22 and 23 are allowed, and the following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As to claim 22, Takahashi et al. fails to disclose modification of the display of return video with respect to self-captured video based on the tally signal. All display changes in Takahashi et al. are performed on either on a single video feed or on the video globally. Furthermore, as discussed above, Manabe’s relative display of the camera video and return video is based on user selection, not the state of a tally signal. Manabe et al. indeed discloses that the display “121” can output a message or icon indicating that the camera’s video is being broadcast based on the tally signal. However, there is no discussion of how or whether even the simultaneously-displayed camera video and return video are modified after the addition of that message or icon on the display. Claim 23 is a computer-readable medium claim encompassing the method steps of claim 22 and is, therefore, allowed for the reasons above.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
B. Claims 2-19 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 2 recites a specific modification of the display of the return video relative to self-captured video, which is not taught by Takahashi et al. or Manabe et al. alone or in combination. See the reasons for allowance of claim 22 above. Claims 3-19 are allowable because they depend on claim 2.
VI. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Kitai (US 2024/0048841 A1) discloses another of example of altering a displayed video based on a state of a tally signal. Hashiguchi et al. (US 2011/0181766 A1) teaches another example of remote-controllable change in the display of camera video and return video discussed in Applicant’s related-art section of the specification.
VII. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
6/13/2026
Prosecution Insights