DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Priority
3. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Information Disclosure Statement filed 24 February 2025 has been fully considered by Examiner. An annotated copy is included herewith.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 10-12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agrawal (US-2024/0106982).
Regarding claim 1: Agrawal discloses an image processing system (fig 1(101) and [0026] of Agrawal) comprising: one or more memories storing instructions (fig 1 (130) and [0028] of Agrawal); and one or more processors executing the instructions (fig 1(120) and [0027] of Agrawal) to: set a first imaging parameter and a second imaging parameter of a virtual camera corresponding to a virtual viewpoint image generated based on a plurality of captured images, the second imaging parameter being different from the first imaging parameter (fig 5(152,508,524), fig 12, [0044]-[0045], and [0092] of Agrawal – first and second imaging parameters are the fields of view of first and second captured images at first and second physical camera locations, such as 508 and 524; the physical locations 508 and 524 each correspond to virtual locations and virtual fields of view in the virtual space 152; thus, the physical cameras, viewpoint images, and so on have a virtual analog in the virtual space; also, multiple physical view from multiple users, which are used to generate multiple virtual viewpoints for each person in a virtual space); generate a first virtual viewpoint image based on the first imaging parameter (fig 5(510) and [0044] of Agrawal) and a second virtual viewpoint image based on the second imaging parameter (fig 5(510a) and [0045] of Agrawal, also see fig 12 and [0092]-[0093] of Agarwal, which shows multiple virtual viewpoints images for multiple people in the virtual space); generate a composite image by combining the first virtual viewpoint image and the second virtual viewpoint image (fig 12, [0031], [0046], and [0093]-[0096] of Agrawal – combines multiple virtual viewpoints into a composite image stream); obtain content of operation of a user for the first imaging parameter or the second imaging parameter (fig 12(1240,1242) and [0095] of Agrawal); and display the generated composite image (fig 12(1224) and [0094]-[0096] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 10: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: obtain user input ([0029] of Agrawal); and set the second imaging parameter based on the first imaging parameter and the user input (fig 12 and [0091]-[0092] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 11: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: set a predetermined number of imaging parameters different from the first imaging parameter and the second imaging parameter (fig 12 and [0092]-[0093] of Agarwal, which shows multiple virtual viewpoints images for multiple people in the virtual space, and thus multiple different imaging parameters different from the first and second imaging parameters); generate virtual viewpoint images, each based on a respective one of the predetermined number of imaging parameters (fig 12 (1230) and [0093]-[0094] of Agrawal); and generate a composite image by combining the virtual viewpoint images, each based on a respective one of the predetermined number of imaging parameters, in addition to the first virtual viewpoint image and the second virtual viewpoint image (fig 12(1224) and [0093]-[0094] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 12: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 11 (as rejected above), wherein the predetermined number is set based on user input ([0095]-[0096] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 14: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the second imaging parameter includes information indicating a position of the virtual camera in virtual space for generating the second virtual viewpoint image (fig 5(524) and [0045] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 16: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 1 (as rejected above), wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to present the generated composite image; and obtain content of operation of the user for the first imaging parameter and the second imaging parameter (fig 12(1224) and [0093]-[0094] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 17: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 16 (as rejected above), wherein the first imaging parameter or the second imaging parameter are set based on the content of operation (fig 5 and [0044]-[0045] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 18: Agrawal discloses an information processing method comprising setting a first imaging parameter and a second imaging parameter of a virtual camera corresponding to a virtual viewpoint image generated based on a plurality of captured images, the second imaging parameter being different from the first imaging parameter (fig 5(152,508,524), fig 12, [0044]-[0045], and [0092] of Agrawal – first and second imaging parameters are the fields of view of first and second captured images at first and second physical camera locations, such as 508 and 524; the physical locations 508 and 524 each correspond to virtual locations and virtual fields of view in the virtual space 152; thus, the physical cameras, viewpoint images, and so on have a virtual analog in the virtual space; also, multiple physical view from multiple users, which are used to generate multiple virtual viewpoints for each person in a virtual space); generating a first virtual viewpoint image based on the first imaging parameter (fig 5(510) and [0044] of Agrawal) and a second virtual viewpoint image based on the second imaging parameter (fig 5(510a) and [0045] of Agrawal, also see fig 12 and [0092]-[0093] of Agarwal, which shows multiple virtual viewpoints images for multiple people in the virtual space); generating a composite image by combining the first virtual viewpoint image and the second virtual viewpoint image (fig 12, [0031], [0046], and [0093]-[0096] of Agrawal – combines multiple virtual viewpoints into a composite image stream); obtaining content of operation of a user for the first imaging parameter or the second imaging parameter (fig 12(1240,1242) and [0095] of Agrawal); and displaying the generated composite image (fig 12(1224) and [0094]-[0096] of Agrawal).
Regarding claim 19: Agrawal discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program which, when executed by a computer comprising a processor and memory, causes the computer (fig 1(120,130) and [0027]-[0028] of Agrawal) to: set a first imaging parameter and a second imaging parameter of a virtual camera corresponding to a virtual viewpoint image generated based on a plurality of captured images, the second imaging parameter being different from the first imaging parameter (fig 5(152,508,524), fig 12, [0044]-[0045], and [0092] of Agrawal – first and second imaging parameters are the fields of view of first and second captured images at first and second physical camera locations, such as 508 and 524; the physical locations 508 and 524 each correspond to virtual locations and virtual fields of view in the virtual space 152; thus, the physical cameras, viewpoint images, and so on have a virtual analog in the virtual space; also, multiple physical view from multiple users, which are used to generate multiple virtual viewpoints for each person in a virtual space); generate a first virtual viewpoint image based on the first imaging parameter (fig 5(510) and [0044] of Agrawal) and a second virtual viewpoint image based on the second imaging parameter (fig 5(510a) and [0045] of Agrawal, also see fig 12 and [0092]-[0093] of Agarwal, which shows multiple virtual viewpoints images for multiple people in the virtual space); generate a composite image by combining the first virtual viewpoint image and the second virtual viewpoint image (fig 12, [0031], [0046], and [0093]-[0096] of Agrawal – combines multiple virtual viewpoints into a composite image stream); obtain content of operation of a user for the first imaging parameter or the second imaging parameter (fig 12(1240,1242) and [0095] of Agrawal); and display the generated composite image (fig 12(1224) and [0094]-[0096] of Agrawal).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agrawal (US-2024/0106982) in view of Dsouza (US-2019/0355172).
Regarding claim 13: Agrawal discloses the image processing system according to claim 1 (as rejected above). Agrawal does not disclose wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: set a transparency of the second virtual viewpoint image at which combining for the composite image is performed.
Dsouza discloses wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to: set a transparency of the second virtual viewpoint image at which combining for the composite image is performed ([0017], and [0057]-[0058] of Dsouza).
Agrawal and Dsouza are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, namely virtual composite image generation. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to set a transparency of the second virtual viewpoint image at which combining for the composite image is performed as taught by Dsouza. The motivation for doing so would have been to allow a user to apply different virtual backgrounds for a virtual meeting or virtual tour. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Agrawal according to the relied-upon teachings of Dsouza to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 2-9 and 15 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James A Thompson whose telephone number is (571)272-7441. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-6pm.
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.
/JAMES A THOMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights