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) as well as of the receipt of the certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
III. Claim Interpretation
Generally, claims in an application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim limitation is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181 (I), claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Functional claim limitations that do not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f): control apparatus, obtaining unit, change unit, generation unit (claim 6), transmission unit
Claim 1 recites a control apparatus that controls a plurality of image capturing
apparatuses. The examiner submits that this limitation satisfies prongs (A) and (B) above because it recites a generic placeholder (apparatus) and the generic placeholder apparatus is followed by the control function. However, the examiner submits that the limitation does not satisfy prong (C) because claim 1 further recites that the control apparatus comprises an obtaining unit and change unit each embodied by one or more processors, which the examiner submits is sufficient structure for performing the function of controlling a plurality of image capturing apparatuses.
As noted above, claim 1 further recites an obtaining unit and a change unit that each recite a generic placeholder (unit) and are followed by respective video image data obtaining and setting value change functions. However, they do not satisfy prong (C) because claim 1 further recites that these units are embodied by one or more processors, which the examiner submits is sufficient structure for performing the obtaining and change functions. Claims 6 and 8 respectively recites a generation unit and transmission unit. Like the obtaining unit and change unit in claim 1, they satisfy prongs (A) and (B) because they each recite a generic placeholder followed by a function but do not satisfy prong (C) because claims 6 and 8 both recites that one or more processors embody those units.
B. Functional claim limitations that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and are definite: reception unit
Claim 1 further recites a reception unit that receives a change in setting values. This limitation satisfies prongs (A) and (B) because it recites a generic placeholder (unit) followed by the setting values reception function. It also satisfies prong (C) because, unlike the obtaining unit and change unit, claim 1 does not recite that one or more processors embody that unit and does not recite any other structure, material, or acts sufficient to perform setting values reception function. Therefore, the reception unit invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
After reviewing the specification, the examiner concludes that the reception unit is a general-purpose computer-implemented limitation, for which a general-purpose processor is sufficient corresponding structure. See MPEP 2181 (I)(B). Since a general-purpose processor is capable of simply receiving data, the reception unit is interpreted as any of the exemplary hardware circuits in para. [0091] of p. 9 of the specification and their respective equivalents.
C. Functional claim limitations that invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and are indefinite: measurement unit and generation unit (claim 4)
Claim 3 recites a measurement unit that measures a period of time, and claim 4 recites a generation unit that generates a display screen. These limitations satisfy prongs (A) and (B) because each recites a generic placeholder (unit) followed by a respective time period measurement and display screen generation function. They also satisfy prong (C) because claims 3 and 4 both do not recite any other structure, material, or acts sufficient to perform the time period measurement and display screen generation functions. Therefore, the measurement unit and generation unit (of claim 4) invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Unlike the function of receiving data, a general-purpose processor does innately perform timing or display screen generation functions. Therefore, the measurement unit and generation unit are special-purpose computer-implemented limitations for which algorithms are required as respective corresponding structure. Again, see MPEP 2181 (I)(B).
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A. Indefiniteness due to failure to disclose structure corresponding a limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
Claims 3 and 4 respectively recite the 112(f) limitations “measurement unit” and “generation unit.” However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to those functions. Therefore, claims 3 and 4 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claim 5 is rejected because it depends on claim 4 and fails to cure its indefiniteness. Claim 6 is not rejected because, although it depends on claim 4, it cures the indefiniteness of claim 4 by embodying the generation unit as one or more processors.
As explained in section III.C. above, the corresponding structure required for a special-purpose computer-implemented 112(f) limitation to be definite is an algorithm. However, the specification fails to disclose algorithms corresponding to the time period measurement function of the measurement unit and the display screen generation function of the generation unit. It only addresses time period measurement and display screen generation with same specificity as the claims. That is, in terms of time period measurement, it discloses between which events the time period is measured but does not elaborate on how timing is performed. Similarly, the specification discloses how the display screen appears to a user but not the steps performed to make it appear that way.
To overcome this rejection, applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
B. General indefiniteness
On lines 8 and 9, claim 1 recites that the “reception unit…receives a change in the setting values for one or more of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses.” Then, on lines 10 and 11, it recites that the “change unit…, upon reception of the received change in the setting values of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses, changes….” The claim is unclear as to whether the reception receives a change in setting values for each of the plurality of image capturing apparatuses or one or more of the plurality. Claims 2-11 are rejected because they depend on claim 1 and fail to cure its indefiniteness.
V. Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claims 12 and 13 are allowed, and the following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: As to claims 12 and 13, the prior art fails to disclose the method steps of obtaining video image data from each of a first image capturing apparatus and a second image capturing apparatus, each having a different transmission data size than the other, and after reception of a change in the transmission data size setting values, a first transmission data size setting value of the first image capturing apparatus is decreased before the transmission data size setting value of the second image capturing apparatus is increased.
The instant invention is directed to creation, transmission, and display of multi-angle video data from two image capturing apparatuses have contrary transmission data sizes. The data size differs in regard to resolution, for example. When a change in display size of one apparatus’s image with respect to the other is received (e.g., through user input), a corresponding change in data size occurs. When effecting the change in data size, an instruction is given to the image capturing apparatus that decreases its data size before the instruction is given to the image capturing apparatus that increases its data size. The prior art fails to disclose this feature, and although the claims are recited more broadly than the examiner’s description of the invention, the prior art nevertheless fails to disclose this claimed broader recitation.
Baldwin et al. (US 2019/0082101 A1) discloses the creation of simultaneous display of images with different zoom levels (i.e., angles of view) from two different cameras. However, the reference fails to specifically disclose that the images with different zoom levels have different data sizes and that instructions to change zoom levels occur in a particular order. In short, the examiner’s search has failed to return any prior art references that disclose effecting a decrease in transmission data size of a first image capturing apparatus of a multi-camera system before effecting an increase in the transmission data size of a second image capturing apparatus of the multi-camera system.
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.”
Claim 1 recites allowable subject matter similar to that of claims 12 and 13.
However, the examiner will not officially be allowed until the outstanding rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is resolved.
VI. 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
8/6/2026
Prosecution Insights