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 § 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, 12-13, 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Oyama et al. (US 2019/0208141 A1).
As to claim 1, Oyama et al. discloses an electronic device (Fig.1C: digital camera 100) comprising:
a processor (Fig.1C: system control unit 50); and
a memory (Fig.1C: nonvolatile memory 56) storing a program which, when executed by the processor ([0032]: “The system control unit 50 implements various types of processing according to the present exemplary embodiment to be described below by executing the programs recorded in the nonvolatile memory 56.”), causes the electronic device to
execute acquisition processing of acquiring information of orientation of an imaging apparatus during photograph of an image (Fig.5: S508 and S517; [0097]: “In step S508, the system control unit 50 detects the orientation of the digital camera 100 with respect to the direction of gravity by the orientation detection unit 55”. Also see [0106] for S517); and
execute control processing of controlling, based on the information, whether to perform tilt correction on the image to bring a position corresponding to a horizontal direction during the photograph closer to a position corresponding to a front direction (Fig.7; [0115]: S702: “In step S702, the CPU 201 performs automatic correction determination processing.” Fig.8: S803; [0127]: “In step S803, the CPU 201 obtains the attribute information (metadata) about the VR image to be displayed (information acquisition or information reading).” The attribute information includes orientation information. It is used to determine whether to perform zenith and yaw angle corrections (first to fourth display methods as shown in Fig.8, S802, S807, S809 and S810). Please note that the zenith angle correction corresponds to the claimed tilt correction).
As to claim 12, Oyama et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein
the image includes a plurality of image areas photographed through a plurality of optical systems, respectively (Fig.1C: imaging lenses 103a and 103b, shutters 101a and 101b, and imaging units 22a and 22b; [0026]: “The imaging units 22a and 22b capture a virtual reality (VR) image. … A VR image has a video range (effective video range) of a field of view of up to 360° in a vertical direction (vertical angle, angle from the zenith, angle of elevation, angle of depression, elevation angle, or pitch angle) and 360° in a horizontal direction (horizontal angle, azimuth angle, yaw angle, or yaw direction)).
As to claim 13, Oyama et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, wherein
the program, when executed by the processor, further causes the electronic device to execute correction processing of performing the tilt correction ([0087]: “This processing is implemented by loading a program recorded in the nonvolatile memory 56 into the system memory 52 and executing the program by the system control unit 50”).
Method claim 16 recites substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claim 1; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 18, Oyama et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program, wherein the program causes a computer to execute a control method of an electronic device ([0032]: The system control unit 50 implements various types of processing by executing the programs recorded in the nonvolatile memory 56).
The rest of the claim recites substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claim 1; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 (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 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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2019/0208141 A1) in view of Miyasako (US 2011/0013031 A1).
As to claim 2, Oyama et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, but it fails to disclose in the acquisition processing, the information on the orientation of the imaging apparatus during the photography and at least one of a type and an angle of view of a lens unit mounted on the imaging apparatus during the photography are acquired.
However, Miyasako teaches in the acquisition processing, at least one of a type and an angle of view of a lens unit mounted on the imaging apparatus during the photography are acquired (Figs. 6A-6C; [0091-0095]: panning start threshold and panning end threshold are determined according to the focal length (angle of view) of the zoom lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oyama et al. with the teaching of Miyasako to acquire an angle of view of a lens unit mounted on the imaging apparatus during the photography, so as to allow the correction control to be adapted to the optical characteristics of the mounted lens, thereby improving correction accuracy and image quality.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2019/0208141 A1) in view of Mohanty et al. (US 2023/0385997 A1).
As to claim 5, Oyama et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, but it fails to disclose, in the control processing, control is performed not to perform the tilt correction in a case where a tilt amount of the imaging apparatus corresponding to the information is larger than a third threshold.
However, Mohanty et al. teaches in the control processing, control is performed not to perform the tilt correction in a case where a tilt amount of the imaging apparatus corresponding to the information is larger than a third threshold ([0081]: “the tilt angle ranges above 15° in a clockwise direction or anticlockwise direction with reference to 0° in a 360-degree scale considers as intentionally creating the tilt in the images/videos, whereas the image ranges above 0° to 15° in the clockwise direction or the anticlockwise direction with reference to 0° in the 360-degree scale considers as unintentionally creating the tilt in the images/videos”. The tilt angle of 15 degree corresponds to the claimed third threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oyama et al. with the teaching of Mohanty et al. such that in the control processing, control is performed not to perform the tilt correction in a case where a tilt amount of the imaging apparatus corresponding to the information is larger than a third threshold, so as to prevent undesired correction of intentionally tilted images and thereby improving preservation of the photographer’s intended composition.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2019/0208141 A1) in view of Segapelli (US 9,756,249 B1).
As to claim 6, Oyama et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, but it fails to disclose in a case where a moving image photographed by the imaging apparatus includes a period in which it is determined that the tilt correction is not to be performed, in the control processing, control is performed not to perform the tilt correction in an identified period including the period.
However, Segapelli teaches in a case where a moving image photographed by the imaging apparatus includes a period in which it is determined that the tilt correction is not to be performed, in the control processing, control is performed not to perform the tilt correction in an identified period including the period (Col. 7, Lines 14-22: it uses two thresholds to avoid frequent switching of the EIS on and off. For example, a lower motion frequency threshold may be at 10% lower frequency than the determined baseline motion frequency threshold, and an upper motion frequency threshold may be at a 10% higher frequency than the determined baseline motion frequency threshold. The EIS disabled period determined by the baseline motion frequency threshold corresponds to the claimed period; and the EIS disabled period determined by the lower and upper motion frequency thresholds corresponds to the claimed identified period).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oyama et al. with the teaching of Segapelli such that in a case where a moving image photographed by the imaging apparatus includes a period in which it is determined that the tilt correction is not to be performed, in the control processing, control is performed not to perform the tilt correction in an identified period including the period, so as to prevent repeatedly turning on and off across adjacent frames, thereby reducing visual discontinuity and improving video viewing quality.
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2019/0208141 A1) in view of Manzari et al. (US 2024/0080543 A1).
As to claim 11, Oyama et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 1, but it fails to disclose in the control processing, control is performed to provide a first notification when an image on which the tilt correction is not performed is displayed.
However, Manzari et al. teaches in the control processing, control is performed to provide a first notification when an image on which the tilt correction is not performed is displayed (Fig. 11L; [0322]: “computer system 600 displays stabilization banner notification 1188b, which indicates that computer system 600 is no longer operating in the stabilization mode (e.g., “Stabilization Off”)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oyama et al. with the teaching of Manzari et al. to provide a first notification when an image on which the tilt correction is not performed is displayed, so as to improve user awareness of the image-processing status and reducing potential confusion regarding the displayed image.
As to claim 14, Oyama et al. discloses an electronic device (Fig.1C: digital camera 100) comprising:
a processor (Fig.1C: system control unit 50); and
a memory (Fig.1C: nonvolatile memory 56) storing a program which, when executed by the processor ([0032]: “The system control unit 50 implements various types of processing according to the present exemplary embodiment to be described below by executing the programs recorded in the nonvolatile memory 56.”), causes the electronic device to
execute acquisition processing of acquiring information on orientation of an imaging apparatus (Fig.5: S508 and S517; [0097]: “In step S508, the system control unit 50 detects the orientation of the digital camera 100 with respect to the direction of gravity by the orientation detection unit 55”. Also see [0106] for S517); and
execute control processing of performing control
Oyama et al. fails to disclose execute control processing of performing control to provide, based on the information, a second notification regarding whether to perform tilt correction on an image photographed by the imaging apparatus to bring a position corresponding to a horizontal direction close to a position corresponding to a front direction.
However, Manzari et al. teaches executing control processing of performing control to provide, based on the information, a second notification regarding whether to perform tilt correction on an image photographed by the imaging apparatus to bring a position corresponding to a horizontal direction close to a position corresponding to a front direction (Fig. 11L; [0322]: “computer system 600 displays stabilization banner notification 1188b, which indicates that computer system 600 is no longer operating in the stabilization mode (e.g., “Stabilization Off”)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oyama et al. with the teaching of Manzari et al. to provide a second notification regarding whether to perform tilt correction on an image photographed by the imaging apparatus, so as to inform the user of the operating status of the tilt-correction function, thereby improving user awareness of image processing operations and enhancing the usability of the electronic device.
Claim(s) 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oyama et al. (US 2019/0208141 A1) in view of Manzari et al. (US 2024/0080543 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Mohanty et al. (US 2023/0385997 A1).
As to claim 15, Oyama et al. in view of Manzari et al. discloses the electronic device according to claim 14.
The above combination fails to disclose in the control processing, control is performed to provide the second notification in a case where a tilt amount of the imaging apparatus corresponding to the information is a tilt amount for which the tilt correction is not to be performed.
However, Mohanty et al. teaches where a tilt amount of the imaging apparatus corresponding to the information is a tilt amount for which the tilt correction is not to be performed ([0081]: “the tilt angle ranges above 15° in a clockwise direction or anticlockwise direction with reference to 0° in a 360-degree scale considers as intentionally creating the tilt in the images/videos”. In this case, the tilt correction is not to be performed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim to modify the combination of Oyama et al. and Manzari et al. with the teaching of Mohanty et al. such that in the control processing, control is performed to provide the second notification in a case where a tilt amount of the imaging apparatus corresponding to the information is a tilt amount for which the tilt correction is not to be performed, so as to prevent undesired correction of intentionally tilted images and thereby improving preservation of the photographer’s intended composition.
Method claim 17 recites substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claim 14; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 19, Oyama et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program, wherein the program causes a computer to execute a control method of an electronic device ([0032]: The system control unit 50 implements various types of processing by executing the programs recorded in the nonvolatile memory 56).
The rest of the claim recites substantially similar subject matter as disclosed in claim 14; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 and 7-10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENZHEN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-2519. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am - 5:30 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, 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.
/ZHENZHEN WU/Examiner, Art Unit 2637
/SINH TRAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights