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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 04/03/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement filed 08/01/2025 fails to comply with MPEP 2004 Aids to Compliance with Duty of Disclose [R-07.2022], which states in part:
13. It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. V. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC V. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
The court case listed above was retrieved on the following website: (https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/359/948/1470934). Please refer to, Section VII. The Stuart Patent is Unenforceable, Number 57, which states:
Obviously, the purpose of this misrepresentation was to bury the Wollard patent in a long list of allegedly old prior art patents in the hope that the Patent Examiner, having already allowed the Stuart claims, would ignore the list and permit the Stuart patent to issue. Such conduct clearly violates the required standard of candor and fair dealing with the Patent Office.
Applicant has provided IDS dated 08/01/2025, wherein the IDS document includes a laundry list of references (i.e. IDS dated 08/01/2025 includes around 270 references). Please point out the relevance or significance pertaining to the documents in the IDS's listed above.
The IDS dated 08/01/2025 have been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,262,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim is performing the same steps except for a substitution of “originally captured view” to “originally smoothed camera motion”, and “a new view” to “a new smoothed camera motion”.
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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stec (US 20210218894) in view of Newman (US 20210006719).
Regarding claim 1, Stec discloses a camera apparatus, comprising:
a lens that focuses light onto a camera sensor; [See Stec [Fig. 1]]
an accelerometer and a gyroscope; [See Stec [0022] A set of IMU’s which comprise any combination of gyroscopic sensors, accelerometers and/or magnetometers that indicate device movement during image sequence capture.]
a processor subsystem; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions which when executed by the processor subsystem, causes the camera apparatus to: [See Stec [Claim 1 and 0053]]
obtain telemetry data based on the accelerometer and the gyroscope; [See Stec [0022] indicate device movement during image sequence capture…x, y and z movements recorded by the IMU sensors.]
obtain image data based on the camera sensor; [See Stec [Fig. 6] Sensor data (64).]
rectify the image data based on a characteristic of the lens to generate rectified image data; stabilize the rectified image data based on the telemetry data to generate stabilized rectilinear image data; and [See Stec [0056] Control the correction grid provided for each image frame to account for the characteristics of the image acquisition system, the lens model, and IMU input. Also, see 0064-0066, calculation of the correction grid for an image comprises: 1. Back-projection from the image (sensor) space to 3D according to the lens projection model to provide quaternion representations Q for each node of a correction grid; 2. Rotation (to take into account rotation measured by a gyroscope or other means) of the quaternions Q. The rotation is calculated using input from a gyroscope within the IMU. Also, see 0076, once the correction grid taking into account lens projection…the correction grid is further adjusted to take into account OIS control…which is measured by the IMU. Since no mention of spherical/circular imaging is mentioned in this reference, the examiner is interpreting these images to be rectangular frames.]
Stec does not explicitly disclose
encode the stabilized rectilinear image data into a video.
However, Newman does disclose
encode the stabilized rectilinear image data into a video. [See Newman [Fig. 1] Transmitting encoded video. Also, see Abstract, stabilization of the images prior to encoding. Also, see 0047, rectilinear camera system.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Stec to add the teachings of Newman, in order to pre-process the image data to enable stabilization of the corresponding image prior to encoding [See Newman [Abstract]].
Regarding claim 2, Stec (modified by Newman) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Stec does not explicitly disclose
where the lens is characterized by a field-of-view that is greater than 120°; and where the image data is non-rectilinear.
However, Newman does disclose
where the lens is characterized by a field-of-view that is greater than 120°; and where the image data is non-rectilinear. [See Newman [0105] Cameras FOV includes greater than 120 degrees. Also, see Fig. 5A, spherical/circular image.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Stec (modified by Newman) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Stec does not explicitly disclose
further comprising: a second lens that focuses second light onto a second camera sensor; where the lens and the second lens are characterized by a field-of-view that is greater than 180°; and where the image data comprises spherical content.
However, Newman does disclose
further comprising: a second lens that focuses second light onto a second camera sensor; where the lens and the second lens are characterized by a field-of-view that is greater than 180°; and where the image data comprises spherical content. [See Newman [0102-0103] Spherical camera system (including at least two cameras) includes FOV’s greater than 180 degrees. Also, see Fig. 5A, spherical/circular image.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Stec (modified by Newman) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Stec does not explicitly disclose
where the processor subsystem further comprises a codec that is configured to approximate image motion based on straight-line motion vectors and address image data based on row and column addressing.
However, Newman does disclose
where the processor subsystem further comprises a codec that is configured to approximate image motion based on straight-line motion vectors and address image data based on row and column addressing. [See Newman [Claim 19] Motion vector processing of image data. Also, see Fig. 1, Motion estimation performed in video encoder (Applicant’s published spec. para. 0032 states that motion estimation reads on “addressing image data based on row and column addressing”).]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Claims 4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stec (US 20210218894) in view of Newman (US 20210006719) and in further view of Newman et al. (herein after will be referred to as Newman ‘932) (US 20210004932).
Regarding claim 4, Stec (modified by Newman) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Stec does not explicitly disclose
where the characteristic of the lens is a polynomial that describes a distortion of the light according to a sensor radius and a corresponding angle relative to the camera sensor.
However, Newman ‘932 does disclose
where the characteristic of the lens is a polynomial that describes a distortion of the light according to a sensor radius and a corresponding angle relative to the camera sensor. [See Newman ‘932 [Fig. 4B]]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Stec (modified by Newman) to add the teachings of Newman ‘932, in order to improve upon processing of image data by taking into account lens parameters [See Newman ‘932 [0011]].
Regarding claim 6, Stec (modified by Newman) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Stec does not explicitly disclose
where the instructions are further configured to cause the camera apparatus to store cropped portions of the rectified image data into a stabilization margin data structure.
However, Newman does disclose
where the instructions are further configured to cause the camera apparatus to store cropped portions of the rectified image data [See Newman [0087-0088] Crop portions of the images to a corresponding view.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Stec to add the teachings of Newman, in order to crop the images for better image quality [See Newman [0087]].
Stec (modified by Newman) do not explicitly disclose
However, Newman ‘177 does disclose
[See Newman ‘177 [0011] Encoding the media data and the instantaneous metadata within a common data structure. Also, see 0018, the instantaneous metadata comprises in-camera stabilization data. Also, see Fig. 4 and/or 0064, multi-track MPEG file. Newman ‘177 also refers to and incorporates Newman ‘719 in its entirety within.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the device by Stec (modified by Newman) to add the teachings of Newman ‘177, in order to improve upon image quality [See Newman ‘177 [0006]].
Regarding claim 7, Stec (modified by Newman and Newman ‘177) disclose the apparatus of claim 6. Furthermore, Stec does not explicitly disclose
where the video and the stabilization margin data structure are encoded within separate tracks of a single data structure.
However, Newman ‘177 does disclose
where the video and the stabilization margin data structure are encoded within separate tracks of a single data structure. [See Newman ‘177 [0011] Encoding the media data and the instantaneous metadata within a common data structure. Also, see 0018, the instantaneous metadata comprises in-camera stabilization data. Also, see Fig. 4 and/or 0064, multi-track MPEG file. Newman ‘177 also refers to and incorporates Newman ‘719 in its entirety within.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-12 are allowed.
Claims 21-28 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under the non-statutory double patenting rejection, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights