DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this 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. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are “device that receives an operation” (Line 2 of Claim 16) and “apparatus that performs control” (Line 4 of Claim 16).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 1, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “wherein the display control processing limits movement of the display range such that the area included in the planar image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image is prevented from being positioned at the center of the display range”. In other words, the Specification only describes “a center of the display range” at the last line of Paragraph [0007] and said description is with regard to the previously recited limitations in Claim 1 and not the current amendment. Note that Claims 2 – 13 and 17 - 20 fall rejected with Claim 1 at least due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 14, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “wherein the display control processing limits movement of the display range such that the area included in the planar image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image is prevented from being positioned at the center of the display range”. In other words, the Specification only describes “a center of the display range” at the last line of Paragraph [0007] and said description is with regard to the previously recited limitations in Claim 14 and not the current amendment. Note that Claim 15 falls rejected with Claim 14 due to dependency.
Regarding Claim 16, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “wherein the display control processing limits movement of the display range such that the area included in the planar image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image is prevented from being positioned at the center of the display range”. In other words, the Specification only describes “a center of the display range” at the last line of Paragraph [0007] and said description is with regard to the previously recited limitations in Claim 16 and not the current amendment.
Regarding Claim 17, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “wherein the movement of the display range is limited such that an area not corresponding to the hemispherical image is not displayed on the display over an area larger than a predetermined area” In other words, the Specification does not describe where an area larger than a predetermined area of the display is for non-display of an area not corresponding to the hemispherical image during movement of the display range.
Regarding Claim 18, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “if the center coordinates are included in a restricted range corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image, the center coordinates are changed to a boundary value of a displayable range outside the restricted range”. In other words, the Specification does not describe where center coordinates are changed to a boundary value of a displayable range that is outside a restricted range.
Regarding Claim 19, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “as the vertical angle of view increases, a boundary value of the displayable range in a vertical-axis direction is set to a position closer to a center of the hemispherical image in the vertical-axis direction”. In other words, the Specification does not describe where vertical angle increases, a boundary value is set a position that is closer the center of the hemispherical in the vertical-axis direction.
Regarding Claim 20, the Specification does not clearly articulate a description of “wherein in the display control processing, if center coordinates of the display range after the operation are within a reduced moving-amount range corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image, a horizontal movement amount of the center coordinates is reduced by multiplying a movement amount corresponding to the operation by a predetermined value less than 1”. In other words, the Specification describes “ a moving amount to be reduced is calculated in accordance with a formula for reducing the moving amount such as my multiplying a predetermine numerical value of 1 or smaller” (last 2 lines of Paragraph [00103], but fails to described the formula as multiplication of the movement amount with the described predetermined value.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 4, 8 – 12, and 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa.
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa discloses “An image processing apparatus comprising: a processor” (Figure 2B, Paragraph [0013], and Items 201 ‘CPU’ and 200 ‘electronic device’ (Notice that electronic device 200 provide and image processing apparatus with processor 201.)), “and a memory storing instructions” (Figure 2B, Item 203 ‘nonvolatile memory”, and Paragraph [0060], Lines 7 – 8 (Notice that nonvolatile memory stores program instructions for execution.)), “which, when executed by the processor, cause the image processing apparatus to: execute receiving processing for receiving an operation of changing a display range for an image displayed on a display and execute display control processing for performing control based on the operation” (Figures 8 and 9B (Notice the process of Figure 8 is carried out by CPU 201 to cause image processing apparatus 200 to receive at step S807 a pinch operation (i.e. receiving an operation of changing a display range for an image displayed on a display) and execute changing the magnification of lower region to a planar representation at step S809 (i.e. execute display control processing for performing control based on the operation).)), “the control being performed to transform an image of a predetermined range in a hemispherical image into a planar image and to display the planar image on the display” (Figures 8 and 9B (Notice that step S809 is performed to transform the hemispherical image of a predetermined range shown at 901 to a planar image that is displayed at 902.)), “wherein in the display control processing, the control is performed to display, in the display range, an area included in the planar image and corresponding to a predetermined area at least including an upper end position or a lower end position of the hemispherical image but not to display the area at a position of a center of the display range” (Figures 8 and 9B (Notice that control is performed to display in the display range of 902 and an area included in the planar image of 902 that corresponds to a predetermined area at least including a lower end position of the hemispherical image of 901 but does no display said area at the position of the center of the display range of 902 (i.e. at least the lower end position of the hemispherical image of 901 is below the center of the display range in 902).), “wherein the display control processing limits movement of the display range such that the area included in the planar image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image is prevented from being positioned at the center of the display range” (Figures 8 and 9B (Notice that control is performed to display in the display range of 902 and an area included in the planar image of 902 that corresponds to a predetermined area at least including a lower end position of the hemispherical image of 901 but does not display said area at the position of the center of the display range of 902 (i.e. at least the lower end position of the hemispherical image of 901 is below the center of the display range in 902, such that movement of the display range is limited by preventing at least the lower end position of the hemispherical image of 901 from being at the center of display range 902.)).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein in the receiving processing, an operation performed with a touch panel or a button is received” (Figures 2B, 8, and 9B (Notice that in the receiving processing described above a pinch operation at S807 performed with a touch panel 206a of electronic device 200 is received.))
Regarding Claim 3, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein in the receiving processing, an operation for changing a position of the display range or an operation for changing a size of the display range is received” (Figures 2B, 8, and 9B (Notice that in the receiving processing described above a pinch operation at S807 for changing a size of the display range of the hemispherical image of 901 is received.))
Regarding Claim 4, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “in the display control processing, the hemispherical image is transformed into the planar image through perspective projection transformation” (Figure 9B (Notice that the hemispherical image of 901 is transformed in the planar image of 902 while observing a transformation preserving a projection of the user’s perspective on the hemispherical image of 901)).
Regarding Claim 8, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “further comprising: the display” (Figure 2B, Item 205 ‘display’, and Paragraph [0143], Lines 1 – 4 (Notice that the image processing apparatus 200 further comprises the display 205 shown in dual-screen display in Figure 9A/9B).
Regarding Claim 9, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the image processing apparatus to execute acquisition processing to acquire a fish-eye image, and in the display control processing, the fish-eye image acquired in the acquisition processing is transformed into the planar image through perspective projection transformation and is displayed on the display” (Figures 2B, 8, and 9B (Notice that program execution via CPU 201 results in acquisition of the fish-eye, hemispherical image of upper region 901 to display said image in the display of Figure 9B and results in display processing of the fish-eye, hemispherical image of 901 to perform transformation and display the planar image at lower region 902 of the display of Figure 9B.)).
Regarding Claim 10, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein in the image displayed on the display, an area not corresponding to the planar image is displayed in a predetermined color” (Figure 9B (Notice that an area of buttons 604, 624, and 625 in region 902 not corresponding to the planar image in region 102 are shown in a predetermined color of white.)).
Regarding Claim 11, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein in the display control processing, the control is performed to display the planar image or a fish-eye image on the display, and if the fish-eye image is to be displayed on the display, restriction is not put on a displayable range in an area included in the fish-eye image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image” (Figures 2B, 8, and 9B (Notice that program execution via CPU 201 results in at least display of the fish-eye, hemispherical image of upper region 901 and when the fish-eye, hemispherical image of upper region 901 is displayed, no restriction is put on the displayable range of the area of the fish-eye image in at least the lower end position of the hemispherical image.)).
Regarding Claim 12, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein in the display control processing, if the display range is changed based on a three-dimensionally performed operation, restriction is not put on a displayable range in the area included in the planar image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image” (Figures 2B, 8, and 9B (Notice that program execution via CPU 201 results in a display range change of clipping at S810/S811 via a three-dimensionally performed operation of pushing button clipping button 604, where no restriction is put on the displayable range of the area of the fish-eye image in at least the lower end position of the hemispherical image.)).
Regarding Claim 14, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). Specifically, refer back the rejection of Claim 1 above and notice that the apparatus of Ogawa performs the limitations of the method of Claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 14). Specifically, refer back to the rejection of Claim 14 and notice the method of Claim 14 mentioned in Claim 15 is executed via instructions stored in non-transitory memory 203 operating upon CPU 201.
Regarding Claim 16, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 1). Specifically, refer back the rejection of Claim 1 above and notice that the apparatus of Ogawa provides an image processing system with the components of the limitations of Claim 16.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa.
Regarding Claim 13, Ogawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (See Claim 12). In addition, Ogawa discloses “wherein in the receiving processing, the operation for changing the display range is received in response to a [touch input of] the display, and in the display control processing, if the display range is changed based on the [touch input to the] display, restriction is not put on the displayable range in the area included in the planar image and corresponding to the predetermined area at least including the upper end position or the lower end position of the hemispherical image. (Figures 2B, 8, and 9B (Notice that in the receiving processing described above a pinch touch operation at S807 for changing a size of the display range of the hemispherical image of 901 is received and restriction is not put on the displayable range of planar image with at least respect to the lower end position of the hemispherical image.)). In addition, Ogawa fails to explicitly disclose the touch input as “a change in a posture of a head-mount display” or where the display range is changed “based on the change in the posture of the head-mount display”. However, Ogawa teaches that the image processing apparatus of Figures 2B and 9B is incorporated into VR goggles/head mount adapter 230 to make a head-mount display where head movement is detected to result in an orientation change and the orientation change is utilized as input to direct processing of CPU 201 (Paragraph [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the touch input as “a change in a posture of a head-mount display” or where the display range is changed “based on the change in the posture of the head-mount display” because one having ordinary skill in the art would want to perform control without manually holding (Ogawa, Paragraph [0077], Lines 14 – 15).
Response to Applicants Amendments and Arguments
Applicants amendments and arguments filed July 31, 2026 have been fully considered.
First, the Examiner disagrees that - - [s]upport for these amendments can be found in a least Figures . . . 8A-8C, 9A-9C, 10A-10C - - (REMARKS, Page 8, Lines 7 – 8 (Line reference made by all written lines excluding blank lines and page headers)). The Examiner disagrees because Figures 8A-8C, 9C, and 10A-10C do not exist.
Second, the Examiner disagrees that - - [t]he Office submits that features of the Claims 1 – 13 have necessarily invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) - - (REMARKS, Page 8, Lines 13 – 14 (Line reference made by all written lines excluding blank lines and page headers)). The Examiner disagrees because only Claim 16 (not Claims 1 – 13) has been determined to have invoked 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the instant Office Action and the Office Action mailed May 04, 2026.
Third, the Examiner agrees that the amendments to Claims 5 and 6 have overcome the rejections of Claims 5 – 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as set forth and made of record in the Office Action mailed May 04, 2026.
Finally, the Examiner disagrees that - - OGAWA does not disclose or suggest the configurations of the presently amended claims - - (REMARKS, Page 10, Line 9 (Line reference made by all written lines excluding blank lines and page headers)). The Examiner disagrees because of the reasoning provided above in the rejection of Claim 1 (also incorporated into the rejections of Claims 14 and 16.)) with regard to the previously cited display control limiting movement of the display range such that the predetermined area is prevented from being positioned at the center of the display range.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M BUTCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5575. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ke Xiao, can be reached at (571) 272 - 7776. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BRIAN M BUTCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2627 August 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights