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
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yagisawa (CN 113632449 A, hereinafter, "Yagisawa").
Regarding Claim 1, Yagisawa teaches an image processing method, comprising: confirming an expected angle of view of a to-be-processed image in response to detection of an interactive operation by a user (Yagisawa, pg. 3, para. 3, ln. 1-4, "In addition, the user interface part is set to receive the user operation and by superimposing the main capture image on the sub-capture image to generate the display image, in response to the user operation received by the user interface part to change the superposition size or superposition position of the main capture image."); and generating a target image based on the to-be-processed image and the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image, wherein a line feature of the target image corresponds to the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image (Yagisawa, Fig. 9, pg. 11, para. 1, ln. 1-6, "FIG. 9 depicts a graphical representation in response to a sliding operation to change the overlapping position of the sub-capture image Ps. FIG. 9 [a] depicts the display image displayed on the viewfinder 26. In addition, FIG. 9 [b] depicts a sliding operation performed by using a touch panel of a user interface section 27 provided on a screen of the display section 25. under the condition that the user touches the touch panel and slides up the finger tip of the user or her, the overlapping position of the main capturing image Pm moves upwards to the position Qv indicated by the dotted line.").
Regarding Claim 9, Yagisawa teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Yagisawa teaches the expected angle of view represents an angle of view corresponding to a screen in a viewfinder image for generating a target image (Yagisawa, Fig. 5, pg. 7, para. 2, ln. 1-5, "The image synthesis unit 24 generates a display image Pd by performing an image synthesis process that synthesizes the main capture image Pm generated by the main imaging unit 21 and the sub-capture image Ps generated by the sub-imaging unit 22, based on the control signal from the control unit 35. In addition, the image synthesis unit 24 outputs the generated image signal of the display image Pd to the display part 25 or viewfinder 26, or output to the display part 25 and the viewfinder 26.").
Regarding Claim 10, Yagisawa teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Yagisawa teaches the target image is a preview image when a capturing device captures an image, and confirming an expected angle of view of a to-be-processed image in response to detection of an interactive operation by a user comprises: confirming a preview screen display ratio selected by a user in response to detection of the interactive operation by the user (Yagisawa, pg. 7, last para., ln. 11-14, "In addition, the control unit 35 can control the image synthesis unit 24 to perform image synthesis processing based on the operation signal from the user interface unit 27 under the condition of detecting the visual recognition of the display of the viewfinder 26."); and confirming the expected angle of view based on the preview screen display ratio selected by the user (Yagisawa, Fig. 6, pg. 8, para. 6, ln. 3-4, "Therefore, the user can easily shoot by using the best picture composition by using the sub-captured image Ps while confirming the main captured image Pm.").
Regarding Claim 12, Yagisawa teaches a video processing method, comprising: generating a target video based on a to-be-processed video, wherein: frames of the to-be-processed video comprise a to-be-processed image where an expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image is confirmed in response to detection of an interactive operation by a user (Yagisawa, pg. 3, para. 3, ln. 1-4, "In addition, the user interface part is set to receive the user operation and by superimposing the main capture image on the sub-capture image to generate the display image, in response to the user operation received by the user interface part to change the superposition size or superposition position of the main capture image."); and frames of the target video comprise a target image that is generated based on the to-be-processed image and the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image, wherein a line feature of the target image corresponds to the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image (Yagisawa, Fig. 9, pg. 11, para. 1, ln. 1-6, "FIG. 9 depicts a graphical representation in response to a sliding operation to change the overlapping position of the sub-capture image Ps. FIG. 9 [a] depicts the display image displayed on the viewfinder 26. In addition, FIG. 9 [b] depicts a sliding operation performed by using a touch panel of a user interface section 27 provided on a screen of the display section 25. under the condition that the user touches the touch panel and slides up the finger tip of the user or her, the overlapping position of the main capturing image Pm moves upwards to the position Qv indicated by the dotted line.").
Regarding Claim 20, Yagisawa teaches an electronic device, comprising a storage and a processor, wherein the storage stores a computer program capable of running on the processor, and the processor, when executing the computer program, is configured to implement: confirming an expected angle of view of a to-be-processed image in response to detection of an interactive operation by a user (Yagisawa, pg. 3, para. 3, ln. 1-4, "In addition, the user interface part is set to receive the user operation and by superimposing the main capture image on the sub-capture image to generate the display image, in response to the user operation received by the user interface part to change the superposition size or superposition position of the main capture image."); and generating a target image based on the to-be-processed image and the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image, wherein a line feature of the target image corresponds to the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image (Yagisawa, Fig. 9, pg. 11, para. 1, ln. 1-6, "FIG. 9 depicts a graphical representation in response to a sliding operation to change the overlapping position of the sub-capture image Ps. FIG. 9 [a] depicts the display image displayed on the viewfinder 26. In addition, FIG. 9 [b] depicts a sliding operation performed by using a touch panel of a user interface section 27 provided on a screen of the display section 25. under the condition that the user touches the touch panel and slides up the finger tip of the user or her, the overlapping position of the main capturing image Pm moves upwards to the position Qv indicated by the dotted line.").
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 2-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagisawa in view of Burns et al (US 12067692 B2, hereinafter, "Burns").
Regarding Claim 2, Yagisawa teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Yagisawa teaches the expected angle of view comprises a longitudinal expected angle of view, the to-be-processed image comprises a first to-be-processed image, and the target image comprises a first target image obtained by performing image processing on the first to-be-processed image (Yagisawa, pg. 2, para. 5, ln. 2-7, "generate a display image by performing an image synthesis process using a main capture image and a sub-capture image according to a view comparison result of the main capture image generated by the main imaging unit and the sub-capture image generated by the sub-imaging unit; and a control part, which is adapted to respond to the detection of the image synthesis part generated by the display image for visual identification of the action so that the image synthesis part performs image synthesis processing."). Yagisawa does not teach when the longitudinal expected angle of view of the first to-be-processed image is equal to or less than a first angle of view threshold, one or more first lines are curved to a greater extent than a corresponding second line along a vertical direction of a respective corresponding display screen, the first line being a line of the first to-be-processed image, the second line being a line of the first target image, and the first line corresponding to the second line. However, Burns teaches when the longitudinal expected angle of view of the first to-be-processed image is equal to or less than a first angle of view threshold, one or more first lines are curved to a greater extent than a corresponding second line along a vertical direction of a respective corresponding display screen, the first line being a line of the first to-be-processed image (Burns, Fig. 2, 210), the second line being a line of the first target image (Burns, Fig. 2, 224), and the first line corresponding to the second line (Burns, Fig. 2, 210 & 224). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Burns and Yagisawa with those of Yagisawa because it is well known in the art to perform image processing on a first to-be-processed image, and make one or more first line curve to a greater extent than one or more second line along a vertical direction of a display screen when said image is equal to or less than a first angle of view threshold.
Regarding Claim 3, Yagisawa and Burns teach the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Burns teaches along the vertical direction of the respective corresponding display screen, the first line is displayed as a curve (Burns, Fig. 2, 210) and the second line is displayed as a vertical straight line (Burns, Fig. 2, 224). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Burns with those of Yagisawa and Burns because it is well known in the art to display a first line as a curve and a second line as a straight vertical line.
Regarding Claim 4, Yagisawa and Burns teach the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Burns teaches the first to-be- processed image and the first target image have at least one of features comprising: a plurality of first vertical lines along a vertical direction in the first to-be-processed image (Burns, Fig. 2, 210) are displayed as a plurality of second lines that are vertical in the first target image (Burns, Fig. 2, 224); curvature of a plurality of first radial lines along a horizontal direction in the first to-be-processed image is consistent with curvature of a plurality of second radial lines corresponding to the plurality of first radial lines in the first target image; or curvature of a curve along a horizontal direction in the first to-be-processed image (Burns, Fig. 2, 210) is less than curvature of a curve along the horizontal direction in the first target image (Burns, Fig. 2, 224). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Burns with those of Yagisawa and Burns because it is well known in the art to display a plurality of first vertical lines from a to-be-processed image as a plurality of second vertical lines in a target image or a curve of horizontal lines in a to-be-processed image having a greater curvature than horizontal lines in a horizontal direction of a target image. Examiner’s note: The limitation regarding the curvature of a plurality of first radial lines in a to-be-processed image and first radial lines in a target image uses disjunctive language, but would otherwise make this claim allowable, as no prior art on the subject was found.
Regarding Claim 5, Yagisawa and Burns teach the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Burns teaches the first line and the second line correspond to each other, and a correspondence of the first line and the second line establishes a display screen formed by the one or more first lines being substantially identical to a display screen (Burns, Fig. 2, 210) formed by the one or more second lines (Burns, Fig. 2 224). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Burns with those of Yagisawa and Burns because it is well known in the art for first and second lines to correspond to each other and establish a display screen formed by the first lines being substantially identical to a display screen formed by the second lines.
Regarding Claim 6, Yagisawa and Burns teach the limitations of dependent Claim 2 as noted above. Burns teaches generating the target image based on the to-be-processed image and the expected angle of view of the to-be-processed image comprises: when the longitudinal expected angle of view is equal to or less than the first angle of view threshold, generating the first target image based on the first to-be-processed image and a first projection method (Burns, Fig. 2, 210); and the first projection method causes, along a vertical direction of the respective corresponding display screen, the one or more first lines (Burns, Fig. 2, 210) to be curved to a greater extent than the corresponding second lines (Burns, Fig. 2, 224). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Burns with those of Yagisawa and Burns because it is well known in the art to generate a target image based on the to-be-processed image and expected angle of view, and to generate the target image based on the longitudinal angle of view being equal to or less than a threshold wherein generating the first target image is based on a projection method which causes one more first vertical lines to be curved to a greater extent than one or more corresponding second vertical lines on a display screen.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagisawa in view of Ren & Avadhanam (US 20250022223 A1, hereinafter, "Ren").
Regarding Claim 11, Yagisawa teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 1 as noted above. Ren teaches the line feature comprises one of features comprising: curvature of a vertical line of a captured image in the target image; or curvature of a horizontal line of the captured image in the target image (Ren, Fig. 4, [0051], ln. 9-12, "FIG. 4 illustrates an example Panini projection image (denoted as a source image 410) that includes a curved line 420 that would correspond to a detected horizontal line in a rectilinear projection image (e.g., the rectilinear projection 220 of the fisheye image 210 of FIG. 2), represented in FIG. 4 as a straight line 430."). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Ren with those of Yagisawa because it is well known in the art to use curvature of vertical or horizontal lines in a target image.
Claims 18 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yagisawa in view of Lin (CN 107644395 A, hereinafter, "Lin").
Regarding Claim 18, Yagisawa teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 12 as noted above. Lin teaches displaying the to-be-processed video before generating the target video based on the to-be- processed video (Lin, pg. 7, para. 4, ln. 1-3, "…the calling glRotate [α, PX, PY, PZ], view transform to obtain the to-be-processed image to be displayed before the image processor 303 also executes the following steps: taking the target image from the target image extracting image characteristic…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Lin with those of Yagisawa because it is well known in the art to display a to-be-processed video before generating a target video.
Regarding Claim 19, Yagisawa teaches the limitations of dependent Claim 12 as noted above. Lin teaches the target video is a preview image of a capturing device (Lin, pg. 7, para. 4, ln. 1-3, "…the calling glRotate [α, PX, PY, PZ], view transform to obtain the to-be-processed image to be displayed before the image processor 303 also executes the following steps: taking the target image from the target image extracting image characteristic…"). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Lin with those of Yagisawa because it is well known in the art for a target video to be a preview image of a capturing device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 8, & 13-17 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 7, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious the expected angle of view comprises a horizontal expected angle of view, the horizontal expected angle of view of the first to-be-processed image being greater than or equal to a second angle of view threshold; and wherein the second angle of view threshold is greater than the first angle of view threshold.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious the to-be-processed image comprises a second to-be-processed image, and the target image comprises a second target image obtained by performing image processing on the second to-be-processed image; and when the longitudinal expected angle of view of the second to-be-processed image is equal to or greater than a third angle of view threshold, a line feature of the second target image is different from a line feature of the first target image, and the third angle of view threshold is greater than or equal to the first angle of view threshold.
Regarding Claim 13, the prior art of record – taken alone or in combination – fails to teach or render obvious the to-be-processed video comprises a first to-be-processed video segment and a second to-be-processed video segment, and the target video comprises a first target video segment and a second target video segment; an expected angle of view of the first to-be-processed video segment is different from an expected angle of view of the second to-be-processed video segment; and a line feature of the first target video segment is different from a line feature of the second target video segment.
Regarding Claim 14, it is allowable because it is dependent on Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 15, it is allowable because it is dependent on Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 16, it is allowable because it is dependent on Claim 15 which is dependent on Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 17, it is allowable because it is dependent on Claim 16 which is dependent on Claim 15 which is dependent on Claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN DANIEL BARRY whose telephone number is (571)270-0432. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 0730-1630.
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, Lin Ye can be reached on 517-272-7372. 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.
/STEVEN DANIEL BARRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights