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 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.
Claims 1-6, 15, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LeGendre et al. (Jointly Optimizing Color Rendition and In-Camera Backgrounds in an RGB Virtual Production Stage, published July 2022), hereinafter referenced as LeGendre.
Regarding claim 1, LeGendre discloses an imaging apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to acquire an input image from an image sensor (section 2.1 step 2 – applying a 3x3 post correction matrix to a final recorded image; in order to process the image, it is apparent that the image must be acquired from the image sensor which captured it), generate information related to color conversion of the acquired input image based on a first color setting parameter determined according to at least one first light source configured to provide illumination light for the acquired input image (section 2.2 Radiometric alignment of different panels – a background LED panel), and a second color setting parameter determined according to at least one second light source configured to provide illumination light for the acquired input image (section 2.2 Radiometric alignment of different panels – a ceiling LED panel), and initiate output of output data according to the generated information related to color conversion of the acquired input image (section 2.1 step 2 – applying a 3x3 post correction matrix to a final recorded image).
Regarding claim 2, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein the at least one first light source comprises one or more first lighting devices that display one or more background images in the acquired input image (Section 1 – Virtual Production – using LED panels to display virtual backgrounds), and wherein the at least one second light source comprises at least one lighting device of a different light source type than the one or more first lighting devices (section 2.2 Radiometric alignment of different panels – a ceiling LED panel would be different than a wall panel).
Regarding claim 3, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 2, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein the one or more first lighting devices include an arrangement of one or more light emitting diode (LED) panels that display the one or more background images (figure 5 exhibits a RGB LED virtual production stage).
Regarding claim 4, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 3, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein content of the one or more background images is determined according to information indicating an area of the one or more LED panels included in the acquired input image (figure 5 shows that the content of the background image is determined according to the in-camera frustrum so that only the portion of the panel which is in the background of the image is used).
Regarding claim 5, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein the first color setting parameter is determined according to spectral characteristics of the at least one first light source, and wherein the spectral characteristics of the at least one first light source are different from spectral characteristics of the at least one second light source (section 2.2 Radiometric alignment of different panels – a background LED panel is used to determine a first color setting parameter and a different LED panel such as a ceiling panel with a different spectral characteristic is not used for the for color setting parameter).
Regarding claim 6, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein the at least one first light source comprises one or more first lighting devices that display one or more background images in the acquired input image (figure 5 shows that one or more LED panels are used to display a background image).
Regarding claim 15, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to perform color conversion based on the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter to obtain a color converted image included in the output data (section 2.1 step 2 – applying a 3x3 post correction matrix to a final recorded image).
Claim 17, a method, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1.
Regarding claim 18, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 17, in addition, LeGendre discloses wherein the acquiring includes acquiring the input image from another information processing apparatus (the images come from a camera, this is interpreted as another image processing apparatus), wherein the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter are each acquired in association with the acquired input image (it is apparent that the setting parameters are associated with the acquired image in order to correct the image), and wherein the method further comprises performing color conversion based on the acquired first color setting parameter and the acquired second color setting parameter to obtain a color converted image included in the output data (section 2.1 step 2 – applying a 3x3 post correction matrix to a final recorded image).
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 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Ajito et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0013812), hereinafter referenced as Ajito.
Regarding claim 7, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 5, however, LeGendre fails to disclose wherein the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter are reflected in the color conversion according to a mixing ratio set between the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter.
Ajito is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Ajito teaches a method for color correcting an image wherein the motivation of accurately reproducing output colors when mixed in plural different lightings would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Ajito’s known principal of reflecting the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter in the color conversion according to a mixing ratio set between the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter (paragraph 59 teaches reflecting different color settings in a color conversion according to a mixing ratio).
In view of the motivations such as accurately reproducing output colors when mixed in plural different lightings one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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 8, LeGendre in view of Ajito discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 7, in addition, Ajito discloses wherein the mixing ratio is set according to an operation of a user (paragraph 59 teaches a user set mixing ratio).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Ajito and further in view of Kadoi et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0274102), hereinafter referenced as Kadoi.
Regarding claim 9, LeGendre in view of Ajito discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 7, however, LeGendre fails to disclose wherein the mixing ratio is set according to a ratio of intensity of the illumination light provided by the at least one first light source to intensity of the illumination light provided by the at least one second light source.
Kadoi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kadoi teaches a method for processing an image wherein the motivation of improving color correction by correcting for both light sources based on their relative intensity would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Kadoi’s known principal of using determining a mixing ratio based on the ratio of intensity of the illumination light provided by the at least one first light source to intensity of the illumination light provided by the at least one second light source (paragraph 92 teaches using a ratio of the intensities of different light sources to determine a white balance mixing ratio).
In view of the motivations such as of improving color correction by correcting for both light sources based on their relative intensity one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Kadoi.
Regarding claim 10, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, however, LeGendre fails to disclose wherein the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter include at least one of color temperature or tint value of the acquired input image.
Kadoi is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Kadoi teaches a method for processing an image wherein the motivation of improving color correction by correcting for both light sources based on their relative intensity would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Kadoi’s known principal of color correcting based on color temperatures (paragraphs 36 and 92 teaches using a ratio of the intensities of different light sources to determine a white balance mixing ratio used for correction).
In view of the motivations such as of improving color correction by correcting for both light sources based on their relative intensity one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0099026), hereinafter referenced as Krishnaswamy.
Regarding claim 11, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, however, LeGendre fails to disclose wherein the generated information includes metadata corresponding to the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter.
Krishnaswamy is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Krishnaswamy teaches a color correction system wherein the motivation of allowing corrections to be performed at a later point in time would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Krishnaswamy’s known principal of wherein the generated information includes metadata corresponding to the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter (paragraph 41 teaches storing color setting information as metadata with the image). When applying this known technique to LeGendre it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to store the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter in meta data as taught by Krishnaswamy.
In view of the motivations such as allowing corrections to be performed at a later point in time one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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, LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the output data includes the metadata in an output image based on the acquired input image (paragraph 41 teaches that the metadata is embedded in the image file).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy and further in view of Tao et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0360174), hereinafter referenced as Tao.
Regarding claim 13, LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 11, in addition, Krishnaswamy discloses wherein the output data includes at least one metadata file corresponding to the metadata (paragraph 41 teaches that the metadata is embedded in the image file). However, the combination fails to disclose the at least one metadata file being separate from and associated with at least one output image file based on the acquired input image.
LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy teaches that the metadata file is stored as part of the output image file (paragraph 41 teaches that the metadata is embedded in the image file). Tao teaches that at least one metadata file being separate from and associated with at least one output image file based on the acquired input image (paragraph 44 teaches using a separate metadata file with is associated with the output image). Because both LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy and Tao teach methods for storing metadata and associating the metadata with an output image, 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 the metadata file being separate from and associated with at least one output image file based on the acquired input image taught by Tao for the metadata taught by LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy to achieve the predictable result of storing metadata information with an output image.
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 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Taoka (United States Patent Application Publication 2009/0153704).
Regarding claim 14, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 1, however, LeGendre fails to disclose wherein the output data includes the raw image data.
Taoka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Taoka teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of allowing raw data to be processed by another device at a later time would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Taoka’s known principal of including raw image data in the output (figure 2 shows that raw image data, R, g and B data, and color corrected compressed images are output into recording device 150 as disclosed at paragraphs 33 and 22).
In view of the motivations such as allowing raw data to be processed by another device at a later time one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 15, however, LeGendre fails to disclose wherein the output data includes the color converted image and raw image data.
Taoka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Taoka teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of allowing raw data to be processed by another device at a later time would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Taoka’s known principal of output data including the color converted image and raw image data (figure 2 shows that raw image data, R, g and B data, and color corrected compressed images are output into recording device 150 as disclosed at paragraphs 33 and 22).
In view of the motivations such as allowing raw data to be processed by another device at a later time one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy and further in view of Taoka.
Regarding claim 19, LeGendre discloses the imaging apparatus according to claim 17, in addition, LeGendre discloses correcting at least one of the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter (section 2.1 step 2 – applying a 3x3 post correction matrix to a final recorded image). However, LeGendre fails to disclose associating the corrected first color setting parameter or the corrected second color setting parameter with raw image data.
Krishnaswamy is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Krishnaswamy teaches a color correction system wherein the motivation of allowing corrections to be performed at a later point in time would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Krishnaswamy’s known principal of wherein the generated information includes metadata corresponding to the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter (paragraph 41 teaches storing color setting information as metadata with the image). When applying this known technique to LeGendre it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to store the first color setting parameter and the second color setting parameter in meta data as taught by Krishnaswamy.
In view of the motivations such as allowing corrections to be performed at a later point in time one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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.
However, LeGendre in view of Krishnaswamy fails to disclose that the image data associated with the parameter is raw image data.
Taoka is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Taoka teaches an imaging system wherein the motivation of allowing raw data to be processed by another device at a later time would have prompted a predictable variation of LeGendre by applying Taoka’s known principal of output data including the color converted image and raw image data (figure 2 shows that raw image data, R, g and B data, and color corrected compressed images are output into recording device 150 as disclosed at paragraphs 33 and 22).
In view of the motivations such as allowing raw data to be processed by another device at a later time one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of LeGendre.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LeGendre.
Claim 20, a non-transitory computer readable medium, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 1. However, LeGendre fails to disclose non-transitory computer readable medium.
However, Official Notice (MPEP 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of controlling a device from a non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing a program used to direct a computer to perform a process is well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have included controlling the process taught by LeGendre by a non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing a program used to direct a computer, for doing so would allow for the control of the device to easily be updated if the process must be changed by providing the process as a computer program as opposed to executing the process through specific hardware units.
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.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Itoh (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0155249) teaches an image processing method.
Kim (United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0053943) teaches a method of shooting in a virtual environment.
Popp (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0328194) teaches a method of shooting in a virtual environment.
Takahashi (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0077731) teaches an image processing method including metadata generation.
Matsubara (United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0358099) teaches a method for processing an image captured with multiple light sources.
Conclusion
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