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 Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 3, the claim language such as “PTZ” is an acronym and full word is required as claim language.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Emori
Claims 1, 3, 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Emori(USPubN 2022/0232146).
As per claim 1, Emori teaches an information processing device comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to(“the memory 11, an imaging unit 12, a video processing unit 13, an output unit 14, an advance information generation unit 15, a metadata generation unit 16, a presentation control unit 17, a superimposition unit 18, and a recording unit 19” in Para.[0058]):
acquire first camera work that is camera work by a camera in rehearsal image capturing(“The camera 10 includes a memory 11, and a rehearsal video captured in a rehearsal filming performed before an actual filming” in Para.[0039]);
acquire first sound information that is sound information in the rehearsal image capturing(“The memory 11 reads and stores video data D21 and its metadata D22 of a recorded video (rehearsal video) captured and recorded in advance and stored in the recording medium 20. In the rehearsal video, the metadata D22 is recorded together with the video data D21 for each frame, but the video data D21 and the metadata D22 are separately stored in the memory 11. The metadata D22 contains time information, a camera parameter, information regarding the posture of the camera, information regarding the position of the camera, sound information, and the like regarding the rehearsal video” in Para.[0059]);
acquire second sound information that is sound information in live performance image capturing with respect to the rehearsal image capturing(“Specifically, in the monitor checked by the sound staff member H1, advance information d1 indicating that the camera is supposed to pan to the right after a predetermined time is presented on the actual performance video PV output from the camera 10” in Para.[0044], “In a case of recording voice with the external microphone instead of a microphone built in the camera, the sound staff member H1 needs to always pay attention to prevent the external microphone from being captured in the actual performance video.” in Para.[0048], “This allows the sound staff member H1 to make an advance preparation to prevent the external microphone from being captured on the right side of the actual performance video” in Para.[0050]);
determine second camera work that is camera work of the camera in the live performance image capturing based on the first camera work, the first sound information, and the second sound information(“the camera 10 outputs an actual performance video PV currently being captured in the actual filming to output systems” in Para.[0040], Para.[0050], “the camera parameter, the information regarding the posture of the camera, the information regarding the position of the camera, the sound information, and the like may be used for comparison between the metadata of the frame images of the actual performance video and that of the rehearsal video” in Para.[0093]); and
instruct a control instruction to control the camera by the determined second camera work to a device that controls the camera(“the actual performance video, the camera pans to the right at a scene PV12 at time t12, and the acting ends” in Para.[0101], “This allows the crane/dolly operator to make an advance preparation for panning the camera to the right after the predetermined time” in Para.[0145], Para.[0156], [0157], [0158], [0159]).
As per claim 3, Emori teaches wherein the second camera work includes PTZ control contents of the camera that performs image capturing(Para.[0178], [0196]).
As per claim 13, the limitations in the claim 13 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, Emori teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions for executing an information processing method(Para.[0189]) and other the limitations in the claim 14 has been discussed in the rejection claim 1 and rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Emori in view of Fiebig
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori(USPubN 2022/0232146) in view of Fiebig et al.(USPubN 2024/0080566; hereinafter Fiebig).
As per claim 2, Emori teaches all of limitation of claim 1.
Emori is silent about wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to calculate a change rate of tempo indicated by the second sound information with respect to a tempo indicated by the first sound information, wherein the second camera work is determined by correcting the first camera work based on the calculated change rate.
Fiebig teaches wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to calculate a change rate of tempo indicated by the second sound information with respect to a tempo indicated by the first sound information, wherein the second camera work is determined by correcting the first camera work based on the calculated change rate(Para.[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Emori with the above teachings of Fiebig in order to improve user experience.
Emori in view of Ishii
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori(USPubN 2022/0232146) in view of Ishii et al.(USPubN 2012/0026349; hereinafter Ishii).
As per claim 9, Emori teaches all of limitation of claim 1.
Emori is silent about wherein the second camera work includes a shaking width and a period of shaking in an operation of periodically shaking the camera in the live performance image capturing.
Ishii teaches wherein the second camera work includes a shaking width and a period of shaking in an operation of periodically shaking the camera in the live performance image capturing (Para.[0047]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Emori with the above teachings of Ishii in order to improve user experience.
Emori in view of Saito
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emori(USPubN 2022/0232146) in view of Saito(USPubN 2024/0334055).
As per claim 12, Emori teaches all of limitation of claim 1.
Emori is silent about wherein, of sections during the live performance image capturing, in a section where association is impossible based on a digital signal of sound between the rehearsal image capturing and the live performance image capturing, the second camera work is determined such that the camera is caused to perform fixed tracking or the camera is caused to perform fixed control.
Saito teaches wherein, of sections during the live performance image capturing, in a section where association is impossible based on a digital signal of sound between the rehearsal image capturing and the live performance image capturing, the second camera work is determined such that the camera is caused to perform fixed tracking or the camera is caused to perform fixed control (Para.[0002], [0003]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings Emori with the above teachings of Saito in order to improve user experience.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 10, 11 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 SUNGHYOUN PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1333. The examiner can normally be reached M - Thur 6:00 am - 4 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, THAI Q TRAN can be reached at (571)272-7382. 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.
/SUNGHYOUN PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2484
Prosecution Insights