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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 2 the claim recites “claim 1, comprising”. The phrase should recite “claim 1, further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “captured video processing unit” in claim 1, “marker processing unit” in claim 11, and “marker processing unit” in 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a “program” is not a statutory class. When amending attention is drawn to the OG notice below.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Aug. 24, 2009; p. 2.
A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, is when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See, e.g., Gentry Gallery, Inc. v. Berkline Corp., 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
For additional information, please see the Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ukas-Bradley (Ukas) et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220201163).
Regarding claim 1, Ukas discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a captured video processing unit (control device 25 as a CPU and/or GPU, par. 249, 270) that performs determination processing of determining a position of a boundary marker in a target frame of a captured video with respect to a captured video obtained by imaging (position marker light sources 37 serve exclusively to enable the position A of the camera 23 to be determined and do not contribute to the representation 19 of the virtual background 21, where the position markers 29 generated at changeable positions 103, 104, 105 and 106 may be generated as marking patterns 30, so that the identification of the imaged position markers 41 in the image 121 may be facilitated and control device 25 and/or the position-determining device 57 may use or execute an image analysis method, in order to identify the imaged position markers 41 in the image 121 of the observation field of view 111 of the camera 23, par. 218, 270, 275), by a camera (camera 23, par. 270), a display that displays a video including the boundary marker displayed at a peripheral edge portion in a display area of the display (viewfinder 79, where the entire field of view of the camera 23 with the recording field of view 109 and the surrounding observation field of view 111 may be displayed on the viewfinder 79 where background display device 15 is configured to display a plurality of predetermined optically detectable position markers 29, where the position markers 29 are outside the edges of the recording field of view 109, par. 215, 246 and Figs. 10A-10C).
Regarding claim 2, Ukas further discloses:
captured video processing unit performs, as the determination processing, processing of extracting the boundary marker from the target frame of the captured video on a basis of generation information of the boundary marker (control device 25 and/or the position-determining device 57 identifies the imaged position markers 41 in the image 121 of the observation field of view 111 of the camera 23, where transmitted camera data D from background display device 15 may represent in particular a respective location L1 or L2 of the imaged position markers 41 within the image 39 generated by the camera 23, par. 248, 270).
Regarding claim 11, Ukas further discloses:
a marker processing unit that performs processing of adding the boundary marker to a video to be displayed on the display (control device 25 may be configured to change positions 103, 104, 105 and 106 of the position markers 29 on the background display device 15, par. 266).
Regarding claim 13, Ukas further discloses:
marker processing unit performs processing of adding the boundary marker to a position corresponding to a peripheral edge portion of the display in the video to be displayed on the display (control device 25 may be configured to change positions 103, 104, 105 and 106 of the position markers 29 on the background display device 15, where position markers 29 are outside the edges of the recording field of view 109, par. 215, 246, 266 and Figs. 10A-10C).
Regarding claim 14, Ukas further discloses:
marker processing unit performs processing of recording generation information of the boundary marker (control device 25 may be configured to change positions 103, 104, 105 and 106 of the position markers 29 on the background display device 15, where transmitted camera data D from background display device 15 may represent in particular a respective location L1 or L2 of the imaged position markers 41 within the image 39 generated by the camera 23, par. 215, 246, 248, 266, and 270).
Regarding claim 15, Ukas further discloses:
video displayed on the display is a virtual video obtained by rendering using a 3D model (virtual background 21 illustrated in FIG. 1A, displayed by the background display device 15 and recorded by means of the associated camera 23, represents a three-dimensional scene 43 that includes the exemplary four objects 91, 92, 93 and 94, three trees and a path, par. 210).
Regarding claim 16, Ukas discloses:
An information processing apparatus comprising:
a marker processing unit (control device 25 as a CPU and/or GPU, par. 249, 270) that performs processing of adding a boundary marker to be displayed at a peripheral edge portion in a display area of a display on a video to be displayed on the display to be imaged by a camera (control device 25 may be configured to change positions 103, 104, 105 and 106 of the position markers 29 on the background display device 15, where position markers 29 are outside the edges of the recording field of view 109, par. 215, 246, 266 and Figs. 10A-10C).
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that the limitations of claim 17 were shown.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that the limitations of claim 18 were shown and where as seen in par. 280 control device 25 may in particular draw on a game engine, which may be configured as a software module for generating and/or adapting the representation 19 of the virtual background 21.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 3, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests captured video processing unit performs, as the determination processing, processing of estimating a position of the boundary marker in the target frame of the captured video on a basis of imaging information including position information, an imaging direction, and an angle of view of the camera at a time of imaging, and position information of the display, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claim.
Regarding claim 4, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests captured video processing unit performs: first determination processing of extracting the boundary marker from the target frame of the captured video; second determination processing of estimating the position of the boundary marker in the target frame of the captured video; and processing of calculating a distortion amount of the captured video on a basis of a determination result of the first determination processing and a determination result of the second determination processing, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claim.
Regarding claim 5, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests captured video processing unit performs: first determination processing of extracting the boundary marker from the target frame of the captured video; second determination processing of estimating the position of the boundary marker in the target frame of the captured video; and processing of calculating a peripheral light amount drop amount of the captured video on a basis of a determination result of the first determination processing and a determination result of the second determination processing, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and parent claim.
Regarding claim 6, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests captured video processing unit performs: processing of generating a mask for distinguishing a first region that is inside the boundary marker and a second region that is outside the first region in the target frame of the captured video; and combining processing of combining an additional video that is a video corresponding to the second region with a video of the first region in the captured video using the mask, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claim.
Claims 7-10 depend on claim 6 and therefore are objected to.
Regarding claim 12, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests marker processing unit generates the boundary marker having a pattern that allows detection of a distortion amount or a peripheral light amount drop amount due to imaging by the camera, and adds the boundary marker to the video to be displayed on the display, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and limitations of the parent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20180220078 – directed to setting a boundary related to where studio equipment is located outside a recording frame
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights