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 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “360-degree image processing unit”, “360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit” in claim 1 and “a front-view image viewpoint position identification unit” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claims 1-8, 10 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara et al. Pub. No.: US 20180349083 (Kasahara) in view of KATSUMATA et al. Pub. No.: US 20230245379 (Hereinafter “KATSUMATA”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kasahara discloses an information processing device (see abstract) comprising:
a 360-degree image processing unit that generates a 360-degree image on a basis of a plurality of captured images captured by a plurality of cameras worn by a first user (see paragraph [0065]);
Kasahara fails to disclose:
a 360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit that identifies viewpoint position coordinates of the first user in the 360-degree image.
in analogous art, KATSUMATA teaches:
a 360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit that identifies viewpoint position coordinates of the first user in the 360-degree image (see paragraph [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device of Kasahara with the
teaching as taught by KATSUMATA in order to make clear the positional relationship between the user and the virtual 3D model to be observed and to easily recognize what the user is watching from where.
Regarding Claim 2, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Kasahara further discloses a front-view image viewpoint position identification unit that identifies, on a basis of a front-view image captured by a front-view camera that captures an image in front of the first user (see paragraph [0065]) and on the other hand, KATSUMATA discloses viewpoint position coordinates of the user, viewpoint position coordinates of the first user in the front-view image (see paragraph [0021]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 2. KATSUMATA further discloses a viewpoint position detection unit that detects viewpoint position coordinates of the first user (see paragraph [0045]); on the other hand, Kasahara discloses from an eye image obtained by capturing an image of an eye of the first user (see paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Kasahara further discloses wherein the front-view image viewpoint position identification unit transforms the viewpoint position coordinates in the eye image into coordinates in the front-view image (see paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 4. Kasahara further discloses wherein the 360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit transforms the viewpoint position coordinates in the front-view image into coordinates in the 360-degree image (see paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Kasahara further discloses wherein the 360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit transforms the viewpoint position coordinates in an eye image obtained by capturing an image of an eye of the first user into coordinates in the 360-degree image (see paragraph [0083]).
Regarding Claim 7, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. KATSUMATA further discloses wherein the 360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit identifies viewpoint position coordinates of the first user in the captured images constituting the 360-degree image (see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. KATSUMATA further discloses
wherein the 360-degree image viewpoint position identification unit identifies the viewpoint position coordinates of the first user in the 360-degree image generated by the 360-degree image processing unit (see paragraph [0045]).
Regarding Claim 10, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. KATSUMATA further discloses a sharing processing unit that determines whether or not to execute processing related to sharing of the viewpoint position coordinates between the first user and a second user (see paragraph [0030]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 10. Kasahara further discloses wherein in a case where a predetermined demonstrative word is contained in utterance content of the first user (see paragraphs [0068 and 1112]), on the other hand, KATSUMATA teaches the sharing processing unit determines to execute the processing related to sharing of the viewpoint position coordinates (see paragraphs [0030 and 0048]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 10. KATSUMATA further discloses wherein in a case where the second user issues an instruction to execute the processing related to sharing of the viewpoint position coordinates, the sharing processing unit determines to execute the processing related to sharing of the viewpoint position coordinates (see paragraphs [0030 and 0048]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 8. KATSUMATA further discloses wherein the viewpoint position coordinates are displayed on a display device of the second user through processing related to sharing of the viewpoint position coordinates (see paragraph [0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara et al. Pub. No.: US 20180349083 (Kasahara) in view of KATSUMATA et al. Pub. No.: US 20230245379 (Hereinafter “KATSUMATA”) further in view of Khalid et al. Pub. No.: US 20170287220 (Hereinafter “Khalid”).
Regarding Claim 9, Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA discloses the processing device as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Kasahara in view of KATSUMATA fail to disclose:
wherein the 360-degree image is transmitted to a display device of a second user different from the first user.
In analogous art, Khalid teaches:
wherein the 360-degree image is transmitted to a display device of a second user different from the first user (see paragraph [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing device of Kasahara in view
of KATSUMATA with the teaching as taught by Khalid in order the user a sense that he
or she is actually present in and experiencing the immersive virtual reality world.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 15-18 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights