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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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, 2, 8-10, 11, 12 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0368620), hereinafter referenced as Li, in view of Skyberg (United States Patent Application Publication 2013/0155187).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a method of providing feedback during an image capture process, the method comprising: displaying, on a display device, a first image capture region including a plurality of cells that identify an area of an image being captured by an image capture apparatus (figure 2 shows a display of a capture region with a plurality of cells 208 as disclosed at paragraph 21); determining an orientation of an object in the image being captured based on the movement of the object (paragraph 22 discloses determining an orientation of the object relative to the camera in order to determine what portion of the object is currently being captured, because the object is changing position relative to the camera, this is based on this movement of the object); displaying, on the display device and within the image capture region, an orientation indicator representing the determined orientation of the object (figure 2 exhibits displaying a cell with a targeted styling having an outline around the cell which represents that the object is currently oriented within viewpoint of the camera as disclosed at paragraph 23); continually updating the display of the first image capture region to indicate areas of the image capture region from which at least one image has been captured based on the movement of the orientation indicator as the orientation of the object in the image being captured is moved (figure 4 shows changing the styling of cells in which an image has been captured to have a different color as the orientation of the object relative to the camera moves as disclosed at paragraph 25). However, Li fails to disclose that the orientation is determined while the object is moving relative to the image capture apparatus.
Li teaches moving a camera relative to an object to capture multiple viewpoints of an object (). Skyberg teaches that either a camera can be moved relative to an object or the object can be moving relative to the image capture apparatus (paragraph 24 teaches that an object can rotate relative to a camera at various angles while the user and the camera remain stationary). Because both Li and Skyberg teach methods for capturing images of an object from multiple viewpoints, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute having the object moving relative to the image capture apparatus as taught by Skyberg for moving the image capture apparatus relative to the object as taught by Li to achieve the predictable result of capturing multiple views of an object.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, in addition, Li discloses wherein the activity of continually updating further comprises: modifying one or more of the cells in the image capture region by changing, in response to the movement of the orientation indicator as determined by the movement of the object relative to the image capture apparatus, a visual state of each cell of the image capture region (figure 4 shows changing the styling of cells in which an image has been captured to have a different color as the orientation of the object relative to the camera moves as disclosed at paragraph 25; as taught by the combination of claim 1, the object is moved relative to the camera).
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, in addition, Li discloses wherein a size of the cell in the first image capture region corresponds to an orientation resolution at which the image of the object is captured (paragraph 25 teaches that the images of each cell are judged for acceptability based on the resolution being sufficient for the cell, therefore the cells enable capture at the resolution which meets the acceptability threshold).
Regarding claim 9, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, in addition, Li discloses providing feedback to a user controlling movement of the object to ensure that the image being captured remains within the first image capture area (paragraph 19 discloses providing feedback to ensure that an object remains in an uncaptured area; by moving the camera, the user is moving the object to different positions within the field of view through the relative movement of the camera to the object).
Regarding claim 10, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, in addition, Li discloses wherein the first image capture region is a two dimensional spheroid shape and the cells are formed via intersecting lines running longitudinal direction corresponding to yaw of the object being captured and latitudinal direction corresponding to pitch of the object being captured (figure 2 exhibits a two dimensional spheroid shape with latitudinal and longitudinal lines forming the cells).
Regarding claim 11, Li discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: a display device (figure 11 exhibits a display 1106 as disclosed at paragraph 48); at least one memory storing instructions (figure 11 exhibits memory 1104 which stores instructions as disclosed at paragraph 44); at least one processor (figure 11 exhibits processor 1102 as disclosed at paragraph 43) that, upon execution of the stored instructions, is configured generate an first image capture region including a plurality of cells that identify an area of an image being captured by an image capture apparatus for display on the display device (figure 2 shows a display of a capture region with a plurality of cells 208 as disclosed at paragraph 21); determine an orientation of an object in the image being captured (paragraph 22 discloses determining an orientation of the object relative to the camera in order to determine what portion of the object is currently being captured); display, on the display device and within the image capture region, an orientation indicator representing the determined orientation of the object based on the movement of the object (figure 2 exhibits displaying a cell with a targeted styling having an outline around the cell which represents that the object is currently oriented within viewpoint of the camera as disclosed at paragraph 23); continually update the display of the first image capture region to indicate areas of the image capture region from which at least one image has been captured based on the movement of the orientation indicator as the orientation of the object in the image being captured is moved (figure 4 shows changing the styling of cells in which an image has been captured to have a different color as the orientation of the object relative to the camera moves as disclosed at paragraph 25). However, Li fails to disclose that the orientation is determined while the object is moving relative to the image capture apparatus.
Li teaches moving a camera relative to an object to capture multiple viewpoints of an object (). Skyberg teaches that either a camera can be moved relative to an object or the object can be moving relative to the image capture apparatus (paragraph 24 teaches that an object can rotate relative to a camera at various angles while the user and the camera remain stationary). Because both Li and Skyberg teach methods for capturing images of an object from multiple viewpoints, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute having the object moving relative to the image capture apparatus as taught by Skyberg for moving the image capture apparatus relative to the object as taught by Li to achieve the predictable result of capturing multiple views of an object.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 12, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, Li discloses wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to: modify one or more of the cells in the image capture by changing, in response to the movement of the orientation indicator, a visual state of each cell of the image capture region (figure 4 shows changing the styling of cells in which an image has been captured to have a different color as the orientation of the object relative to the camera moves as disclosed at paragraph 25).
Regarding claim 18, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, Li discloses wherein a size of the cell in the first image capture region corresponds to an orientation resolution at which the image of the object is captured (paragraph 25 teaches that the images of each cell are judged for acceptability based on the resolution being sufficient for the cell, therefore the cells enable capture at the resolution which meets the acceptability threshold).
Regarding claim 19, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, Li discloses wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to: provide feedback to a user to cause the user to control movement of the object to ensure that the image being captured remains within the first image capture area (paragraph 19 discloses providing feedback to ensure that an object remains in an uncaptured area; by moving the camera, the user is moving the object to different positions within the field of view through the relative movement of the camera to the object).
Regarding claim 20, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, Li discloses wherein the first image capture region is a two dimensional spheroid shape and the cells are formed via intersecting lines running longitudinal direction corresponding to yaw of the object being captured and latitudinal direction corresponding to pitch of the object being captured (figure 2 exhibits a two dimensional spheroid shape with latitudinal and longitudinal lines forming the cells).
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Skyberg and further in view of Varekamp et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0127057), hereinafter referenced as Varekamp.
Regarding claim 4, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, however, Li fails to disclose determining that a predetermined amount of the image capture region has been updated; displaying, on the display device, a second image capture region having a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells in the second image capture region are smaller than the cells in the first image capture region.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of determining that a predetermined amount of the image capture region has been updated (paragraph 105 teaches capturing a default number of poses); displaying, on the display device, a second image capture region having a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells in the second image capture region are smaller than the cells in the first image capture region (paragraph 105 teaches that using the default poses the images can be analyzed and an updated display with new capture positions, such as elements 403 shown in figure 4 can be displayed; figure 4 shows that the distance between these poses are less than the prior distance between poses). When applying this known technique to Li which uses the outline of capture positions as opposed to the center point, it would have been obvious to reduce the size of the cells in order to show the updated capturing locations.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Li in view of Skyberg and further in view of Varekamp discloses the method according to claim 4, in addition, Li discloses capturing images of the object at a first resolution when the object is moving relative to the image capture apparatus and the first image capture region is displayed (figure 10 exhibits step 1014 in which images are captured for each cell; Li in view of Skyberg as applied to claim 1 teaches that the object moves relative to the camera). However, Li fails to disclose capturing images of the object a second resolution higher than the first resolution when the object is moving relative to the image capture apparatus and the second image capture region is display.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of capturing images of the object a second resolution higher than the first resolution when the object is moving and the second image capture region is display (paragraph 120 teaches capturing images at a greater resolution relative to the prior resolution of capture points, this occurs when the object is moved to different points relative to the camera by changing the camera position).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 6, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, however, Li fails to disclose identifying one or more features of the object to be extracted from the image being captured; determining an orientation resolution of an image needed for extracting the identified one or more features; setting a size of the cells of the first image capture region dependent on the determined orientation resolution; and displaying the first image capture region having cells corresponding the set size.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of identifying one or more features of the object to be extracted from the image being captured (paragraph 105 discloses determining a depth variation of the object being captured); determining an orientation resolution of an image needed for extracting the identified one or more features (paragraph 110 discloses based on the complexity determining to a number of poses to add); setting a size of the cells of the first image capture region dependent on the determined orientation resolution (paragraph 110 teaches setting the spacing and therefore the size of the capture positions based on the complexity); and displaying the first image capture region having cells corresponding the set size (figure 4 shows displaying the capture positions). When applying this known technique to Li which uses cells in place of anchor points, it would have been obvious to control the cell size and density similar to the addition of anchor points to ensure that a sufficient number of images are captured by the user.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, however, Li fails to disclose determining a size of the cells in the first image capture region based on a feature of the object to be extracted from the image being captured; and displaying the first image capture region having cells of the determined size.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of determining a size of the cells in the first image capture region based on a feature of the object to be extracted from the image being captured (paragraph 110 teaches setting the spacing and therefore the size of the capture positions based on the complexity); and displaying the first image capture region having cells of the determined size (figure 4 shows displaying the capture positions). When applying this known technique to Li which uses cells in place of anchor points, it would have been obvious to control the cell size and density similar to the addition of anchor points to ensure that a sufficient number of images are captured by the user.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 14, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, however, Li fails to disclose wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to: determine that a predetermined amount of the image capture region has been updated; display, on the display device, a second image capture region having a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells in the second image capture region are smaller than the cells in the first image capture region.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of determining that a predetermined amount of the image capture region has been updated (paragraph 105 teaches capturing a default number of poses); displaying, on the display device, a second image capture region having a plurality of cells, wherein the plurality of cells in the second image capture region are smaller than the cells in the first image capture region (paragraph 105 teaches that using the default poses the images can be analyzed and an updated display with new capture positions, such as elements 403 shown in figure 4 can be displayed; figure 4 shows that the distance between these poses are less than the prior distance between poses). When applying this known technique to Li which uses the outline of capture positions as opposed to the center point, it would have been obvious to reduce the size of the cells in order to show the updated capturing locations.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Skyberg and further in view of Varekamp discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 14, in addition, Li discloses wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to: capture images of the object at a first resolution when as the object is moving relative to the image capture apparatus and the first image capture region is displayed (figure 10 exhibits step 1014 in which images are captured for each cell; the combination of Li in view of Skyberg teaches moving the object relative to the image capture apparatus). However, Li fails to disclose capture images of the object a second resolution higher than the first resolution when the object is moving and the second image capture region is display.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of capturing images of the object a second resolution higher than the first resolution when the object is moving and the second image capture region is display (paragraph 120 teaches capturing images at a greater resolution relative to the prior resolution of capture points, this occurs when the object is moved to different points relative to the camera by changing the camera position).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, however, Li fails to disclose wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to: identify one or more features of the object to be extracted from the image being captured; determine an orientation resolution of an image needed for extracting the identified one or more features; set a size of the cells of the first image capture region dependent on the determined orientation resolution; and display the first image capture region having cells corresponding the set size.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of identifying one or more features of the object to be extracted from the image being captured (paragraph 105 discloses determining a depth variation of the object being captured); determining an orientation resolution of an image needed for extracting the identified one or more features (paragraph 110 discloses based on the complexity determining to a number of poses to add); setting a size of the cells of the first image capture region dependent on the determined orientation resolution (paragraph 110 teaches setting the spacing and therefore the size of the capture positions based on the complexity); and displaying the first image capture region having cells corresponding the set size (figure 4 shows displaying the capture positions). When applying this known technique to Li which uses cells in place of anchor points, it would have been obvious to control the cell size and density similar to the addition of anchor points to ensure that a sufficient number of images are captured by the user.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 11, however, Li fails to disclose wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to: determine a size of the cells in the first image capture region based on a feature of the object to be extracted from the image being captured; and display the first image capture region having cells of the determined size.
Varekamp is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Varekamp teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Varekamp’s known principal of determining a size of the cells in the first image capture region based on a feature of the object to be extracted from the image being captured (paragraph 110 teaches setting the spacing and therefore the size of the capture positions based on the complexity); and displaying the first image capture region having cells of the determined size (figure 4 shows displaying the capture positions). When applying this known technique to Li which uses cells in place of anchor points, it would have been obvious to control the cell size and density similar to the addition of anchor points to ensure that a sufficient number of images are captured by the user.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that sufficient resolution of image data is obtained for more complex views one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of Skyberg and further in view of Dedhia et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0348269), hereinafter referenced as Dedhia.
Regarding claim 21, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 1, however, Li fails to disclose wherein determining the orientation of the object comprises detecting one or more landmarks of the object in the image being captured and determining pitch and yaw orientation angles of the object based on the detected one or more landmarks.
Dedhia is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Dedhia teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving orientation estimates would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Dedhia’s known principal of wherein determining the orientation of the object comprises detecting one or more landmarks of the object in the image being captured (figure 5 exhibits determining landmarks of an object as disclosed at paragraph 31) and determining pitch and yaw orientation angles of the object based on the detected one or more landmarks (figure 5 exhibits steps 506 and 508 in which angles are determined in the yaw and pitch axes as disclosed at paragraphs 33 and 34).
In view of the motivations such as improving orientation estimates one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 22, Li in view of Skyberg discloses the method according to claim 11, however, Li fails to disclose wherein execution of the instructions further configures the at least one processor to detect one or more landmarks of the object in the image being captured and determine pitch and yaw orientation angles of the object based on the detected one or more landmarks.
Dedhia is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Dedhia teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of improving orientation estimates would have prompted a predictable variation of Li by applying Dedhia’s known principal of wherein determining the orientation of the object comprises detecting one or more landmarks of the object in the image being captured (figure 5 exhibits determining landmarks of an object as disclosed at paragraph 31) and determining pitch and yaw orientation angles of the object based on the detected one or more landmarks (figure 5 exhibits steps 506 and 508 in which angles are determined in the yaw and pitch axes as disclosed at paragraphs 33 and 34).
In view of the motivations such as improving orientation estimates one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Li.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights