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 § 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) 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al., US PGPUB No. 20200302664 A1, hereinafter Lee, and further in view of Takeshita, US PGPUB No. 2015002518, hereinafter Takeshita.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an image generation apparatus (Lee; an image generation apparatus [¶ 0046-0048], as illustrated within Fig. 1; moreover, AR user device [¶ 0060-0061 and ¶ 0066], as illustrated within Fig. 2), comprising:
a display (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed above] comprises a display [¶0056-0057], as illustrated within Fig. 1; moreover, I/O [¶ 0068-0069]);
an input device (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed above] comprises an input device [¶ 0048 and ¶ 0050], as illustrated within Fig. 1; moreover, I/O [¶ 0068-0069]);
memory storing instructions (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed above] comprises memory storing instructions [¶ 0064]; moreover, application corresponding to software program [¶ 0049, ¶ 0073, and ¶ 0124-0125]); and
at least one processor (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed above] comprises at least one processor [¶ 0065-0066]; moreover, executable component [¶ 0124]);
wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image generation apparatus (Lee; the instructions cause the image generation apparatus (to perform) when executed by the at least one processor [¶ 0065-0066]) to:
receive, through the input device, a user input selecting at least one two- dimensional (2D) image and at least one three-dimensional (3D) space type (Lee; image generation apparatus [as addressed above] configured to receive a user input selecting at least one 2D image and at least one implicit 3D space type (given a conversion into 3D) through the input device [¶ 0080 and ¶ 0094-0096], as illustrated within Figs. 8A-B; wherein, a user is able to select at least one AR content and a 3D content [¶ 0097-0098], and is able to create a 3D effect associated with multiple media layers (e.g. z-values) [¶ 0090-0092]);
provide a 3D image based on the selected at least one 2D image and the selected at least one 3D space type (Lee; image generation apparatus [as addressed above] configured to provide a 3D image based on the selected at least one 2D image and the implicit selected at least one 3D space type (given a conversion into 3D) [¶ 0095-0096]; moreover, AR user device configured to overlay objects creating a three-dimensional effect [¶ 0097-0098 and ¶ 0100], as illustrated within Fig. 10; wherein, converting a 2D image layer to a 3D image layer [¶ 0095-0096], as illustrated within Figs. 8A-B); and
control the display to display the provided 3D image (Lee; image generation apparatus [as addressed above] configured to control the display [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0056-0058] to display the provided 3D image [¶ 0097-0098 and ¶ 0100]; moreover, multilayer AR image on display [¶ 0073-0074]).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose selecting at least one 3D space type.
However, Takeshita teaches selecting at least one 3D space type (Takeshita; selecting at least one 3D space type [¶ 0058, ¶ 0060, ¶ 0063, and ¶ 0065], as illustrated within Fig. 3).
Lee and Takeshita are considered to be analogous art because both pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Lee, to incorporate selecting at least one 3D space type (as taught by Takeshita), in order to provide improved imaging of three-dimensional content (Takeshita; [¶ 0005-0006 and ¶ 0011-0012]).
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image generation apparatus to identify distinct layers of a plurality of objects in the provided 3D image (Lee; the instructions wherein executed by the at least one processor cause the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to identify distinct layers of a plurality of objects in the provided 3D image [¶ 0073-0075]; moreover, the AR user device creates an object image layer with an extracted target object [¶ 0052-0083 and ¶ 0076]; wherein, an image processor may extract at least one object in a captured image [¶ 0066]; and wherein, layers are distinct in content [¶ 0098]), and wherein the distinct layers have different depth levels (Lee; the distinct layers [as addressed above] have different depth levels [¶ 0081-0082 and ¶ 0095-0096]).
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 2, wherein the plurality of objects (Lee; the plurality of objects [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) comprise:
a first object on a first layer having a first depth level (Lee; a 1st object (i.e. content item) on a 1st layer having a 1st depth level [¶ 0097-0098], as illustrated within Fig. 9; wherein, layers of content items are associated with z-values [¶ 0095-0096]); and
a second object on a second layer having a second depth level that is higher than the first depth level (Lee; a 2nd object (i.e. another content item) on a 2nd layer having a 2nd depth level that is higher than the 1st depth level [¶ 0097-0098], as illustrated within Fig. 9; wherein, layers of content items are associated with z-values [¶ 0095-0096]; additionally, multiple content image layering [¶ 0056-0057] in relation with a 3D space and z-values [¶ 0078-0079 and ¶ 0081-0082]), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image generation apparatus to provide the 3D image by generating an image corresponding to an area where the second object is obscured due to the first object overlapping the second object (Lee; the instructions cause the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to provide the 3D image by generating an image corresponding to an area where the 2nd object (i.e. another content item) is obscured due to the 1st object (i.e. content item) overlapping the 2nd object (i.e. another content item) [¶ 0098 and ¶ 0100], as illustrated within Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]; wherein, overlaid content items may cause obscuring [¶ 0083-0085 and ¶ 0087], as illustrated within Fig. 5A and Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the image generation apparatus (Lee; the instructions (further) cause the image generation apparatus when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) to:
blur the second object at a first blur effect level (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] (is configured) to blur the 2nd object (i.e. another content item) at a 1st blur effect level [¶ 0077-0079]; moreover, blurring in relation with two content items [¶ 0085]; wherein, a background image is blurred [¶ 0105]); and
control the display to display the blurred second object (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] (is configured) to control the display to display the blurred 2nd object (i.e. another content item) [¶ 0083 and ¶ 0085]; moreover, display control [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0056-0058] associated with providing image data [¶ 0097-0098 and ¶ 0100]).
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 3, wherein the plurality of objects further comprise a user interface (UI) object on a fourth layer having a fourth depth level that is higher than the first depth level and lower than the second depth level (Lee; the plurality of objects [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] further comprise a UI object (i.e. content item) on a 4th layer (corresponding to an intermediate layer) having a 4th depth level that is higher than the 1st depth level and lower than the 2nd depth level (i.e. between a foreground and a background) [¶ 0098], as illustrated within Fig. 9; wherein, the reference number (corresponding to “fourth”) corresponds to an intermediate layer), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the image generation apparatus (Lee; the instructions (further) cause the image generation apparatus when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) to:
blur the second object (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed above] to blur the 2nd object [¶ 0077-0079]; moreover, a background image is blurred [¶ 0105]); and
control the display to display the blurred second object (Lee; control the display to display the blurred 2nd object [¶ 0078-0079 and ¶ 0085]; wherein, controlling a display [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Regarding claim 10, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image generation apparatus to provide the 3D image by positioning the selected at least one 2D image on a 2D development shape corresponding to the selected at least one 3D space type and transforming the 2D image positioned on the 2D development shape into a 3D shape corresponding to the selected at least one 3D space type (Lee; the instructions cause the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to provide the 3D image by positioning the selected at least one 2D image on a 2D development shape corresponding to the selected at least one 3D space type and transforming the 2D image positioned on the 2D development shape into a 3D shape corresponding to the selected at least one 3D space type [¶ 0095-0096], as illustrated within Figs. 8A-B, when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 11 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 11 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 11. Although, claim 11 and claim 1 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. Thus, it is reasonable to reject claim 11 based on the teachings and rational in relation with the prior art within the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 12 is addressed within the rejection of claims 2 & 3, due to the similarities claim 12 and claims 2 & 3 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claims 2 & 3 regarding the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 13 is addressed within the rejection of claim 4, due to the similarities claim 13 and claim 4 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 4 regarding the rejection of claim 13.
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 16 is addressed within the rejection of claim 7, due to the similarities claim 16 and claim 7 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 7 regarding the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 19 is addressed within the rejection of claim 10, due to the similarities claim 19 and claim 10 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claims 10 regarding the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 20 is addressed within the rejection of claim 1, due to the similarities claim 20 and claim 1 share, therefore refer to the rejection of claim 1 regarding the rejection of claim 20. Although, claim 1 and claim 20 may not be identical, they are considerably comparable or substantially equivalent given their overlapping subject matter. However, the subject matter/limitations not addressed by claim 1 is/are addressed below.
Lee discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (Lee; a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (that implements) when executed by a least one processor [¶ 0064-0066 and ¶ 0124-0125]).
(further refer to the rejection of claim 1)
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takeshita as applied to claim(s) 4 and 13 above, and further in view of Takeuchi, US PGPUB No. 20020082081 A1, hereinafter Takeuchi.
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 4, wherein the plurality of objects further comprise a third object on a third layer having a third depth level that is higher than the second depth level (Lee; the plurality of objects further comprise a 3rd object (i.e. extra content item) on a 3rd layer having a 3rd depth level that is higher than the 2nd depth level [¶ 0098], as illustrated within Fig. 9; wherein, the reference number (corresponding to “third”) corresponds to an intermediate layer), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the image generation apparatus to control the display (Lee; the instructions cause the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to control the display [¶ 0050 and ¶ 0056-0058] when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]) to:
blur the third object (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] (is configured) to blur the 3rd object (i.e. extra content item) [¶ 0077-0078]; wherein, background images are blurred [¶ 0079]; and wherein, one or more objects (i.e. content items) are associated with different depths and layers [as addressed above]); and
control the display to display the blurred third object (Lee; the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] (is configured) to control the display to display the blurred 3rd object (i.e. extra content item) [¶ 0078-0079 and ¶ 0085]).
Lee as modified by Takeshita fails to explicitly disclose a second blur effect level that is higher than the first blur effect level.
However, Takeuchi teaches to: blur the third object at a second blur effect level that is higher than the first blur effect level (Takeuchi; blurring the 3rd object at a 2nd blur effect level that is higher than the 1st blur effect level [¶ 0051 and ¶ 0118-0119]).
Lee in view of Takeshita and Takeuchi are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a visualization effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Lee in view of Takeshita, to incorporate to: blur the third object at a second blur effect level that is higher than the first blur effect level (as taught by Takeuchi), in order to provide realistic visual effects of perspective within virtual scene (Takeuchi; [¶ 0005-0008]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Takeshita and Takeuchi further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 5, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the image generation apparatus to control the display to sequentially display the plurality of objects based on depth levels of respective layers on which the plurality of objects are positioned (Lee; the instructions (further) cause the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to control the display to sequentially display the plurality of objects based on depth levels of respective layers on which the plurality of objects are positioned (within a z-axis) [¶ 0098 and ¶ 0100], as illustrated within Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]; wherein, Fig. 9 illustrates, an image layer sequence linked to depths; moreover, displaying a plurality of image layers [¶ 0056, ¶ 0058, and ¶ 0087] associated with depth levels [¶ 0095]).
Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 14 is addressed within the rejection of claims 1 & 5, due to the similarities claim 14 and claims 1 & 5 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claims 1 & 5 regarding the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 15 is addressed within the rejection of claims 1 & 6, due to the similarities claim 15 and claims 1 & 6 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claims 1 & 6 regarding the rejection of claim 15.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takeshita as applied to claim(s) 7 and 16 above, and further in view of Sudo, US PGPUB No. 20130014024 A1, hereinafter Sudo.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Takeshita further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the image generation apparatus to, based on receiving a user input associated with moving the UI object to a fifth layer having a fifth depth level that is lower than the first depth level, control the display to display the UI object moving to the fifth layer (Lee; the instructions (further) cause the image generation apparatus [as addressed within the parent claim(s)] to control the display to display the UI object (i.e. content) implicitly moving to the 5th layer (given dynamically ordering) based on receiving a user input associated with moving the UI object (content) to a 5th layer having a 5th depth level that is lower than the 1st depth level [¶ 0098], as illustrates within Fig. 9, when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]; wherein, the reference number (corresponding to “fifth”) corresponds to an intermediate layer).
Lee as modified by Takeshita fails to explicitly disclose moving the UI object to a fifth layer.
However, Sudo teaches moving the UI object to a fifth layer (Sudo; moving the UI object to a fifth layer [¶ 0091-0093 and ¶ 0098]; moreover, information presented as multiple layers [¶ 0077]).
Lee in view of Takeshita and Sudo are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a three-dimensional effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Lee in view of Takeshita, to incorporate moving the UI object to a fifth layer (as taught by Sudo), in order to provide enhanced visual effects and user efficiency (Sudo; [¶ 0002-0005]).
Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 17 is addressed within the rejection of claim 7, due to the similarities claim 17 and claim 7 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claim 7 regarding the rejection of claim 17.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Takeshita and Sudo as applied to claim(s) 8 and 13 above, and further in view of Node et al., US Patent No. 8791962 B2, hereinafter Node.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Takeshita and Sudo further discloses the image generation apparatus of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the image generation apparatus (Lee; the instructions further cause the image generation apparatus to perform when executed by the at least one processor [as addressed within the parent claim(s)]).
Lee as modified by Takeshita and Sudo fails to disclose based on the UI object reaching the first layer:
apply a collision effect to the first object and the UI object; and
control the display to display the first object and the UI object to which the collision effect is applied.
However, Node teaches based on the UI object reaching the first layer (Node; based on the UI object reaching the 1st layer [Col. 10, line 52 to Col. 11, line 50], as illustrated within Fig. 10 and Fig. 11):
apply a collision effect to the first object and the UI object (Node; applying a collision effect to the 1st object and the UI object [Col. 10, line 52 to Col. 11, line 50], as illustrated within Fig. 10 and Fig. 11); and
control the display to display the first object and the UI object to which the collision effect is applied (Node; controlling the display to display the 1st object and the UI object to which the collision effect is applied [Col. 10, line 52 to Col. 11, line 50], as illustrated within Fig. 10 and Fig. 11).
Lee in view of Takeshita and Sudo and Node are considered to be analogous art because they pertain to generating and/or managing data in relation with providing media data, wherein one or more computerized units are utilized in order to produce a three-dimensional effect.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed invention was made to modify Lee in view of Takeshita and Sudo, to incorporate based on the UI object reaching the first layer: apply a collision effect to the first object and the UI object; and control the display to display the first object and the UI object to which the collision effect is applied (as taught by Node), in order to provide an improved virtual three-dimensional space (Node; [Col. 1, lines 58-62, Col. 2, lines 17-24, and Col. 3, line 4-26]).
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 18 is addressed within the rejection of claim 9, due to the similarities claim 18 and claim 9 share, therefore refer to the rejections of claim 9 regarding the rejection of claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(regarding blurring and depth layers associated with generating a three-dimensional imaging)
Takeuchi (US PGPUB No. 20020082081 A1);
Turner et al. (US PGPUB No. 20110074925 A1);
Naik et al. (US Patent No. 10284753 B1); and
Sudo (US PGPUB No. 20130014024 A1).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to PTO-892, Notice of Reference Cited for a listing of analogous art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Charles Lloyd Beard whose telephone number is (571)272-5735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM, alternate Fridays EST.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached at (571) 272-7773. 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.
CHARLES LLOYD. BEARD
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2611
/CHARLES L BEARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights