DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson et al (US 2019/0080508 A1).
As per claim 1, Johnson discloses an electronic device (fig. 14, computing device 1402) comprising:
at least one camera (fig. 14, computing device 1402, camera, para 0104);
memory storing instructions (fig. 14, computing device 1402, memory 1414, storage 1426); and
at least one processor electrically connected to the at least one camera and comprising processing circuitry, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively (fig. 14, computing device 1402, processor(s) 1416), cause the electronic device to:
identify at least one object and a background excluding the at least one object in an image, wherein the image is obtained through the at least one camera in a first light environment comprising a first light source (fig. 13, black and white stage selection, shows an object in an image and a background wherein a virtual lighting is provided within the object),
determine a second light source different from the first light source (fig. 13, determines a background different than the lighting of the object(s) within the image),
determine at least one property to be applied to the background (fig. 13, a darkening effect may be provided to the background),
apply a first effect to the at least one object, wherein the first effect comprises a light source effect corresponding to the second light source (fig. 13, areas 602, 604, 606, 608, lighting effects may be applied to the areas of the object(s) within the image), and
apply a second effect to the background, wherein the second effect is based on the determined at least one property (fig. 13, background may be darkened based on the lighting effects of the object(s) in the image).
As per claim 2, Johnson discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the light source effect comprises a relighting effect (fig. 13, light source effect is virtual lighting, which may be relight, see para 0086 and 0087).
As per claim 3, Johnson discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second light source is a virtual light source having at least one property which is different from properties of the first light source (fig. 13, second light source applied to background is different than first light source applied to object(s) in the image, para 0086 and 0090).
As per claim 4, Johnson discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein the second light source is different from at least one of an intensity of the first light source and a direction of the first light source (fig. 13, second light source is different intensity than an intensity of the first light source applied to the object(s) within the image and direction).
As per claim 5, Johnson discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the second effect comprises a color effect (fig. 13, second effect applied to background is black).
As per claim 9, Johnson discloses the electronic device of claim 1 wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to apply a third effect different from the second effect to the background, wherein the third effect comprises a gradation effect (fig. 13, gradient 1312 may be applied to the image which is different from the background, para 0090).
As per claim 10, Johnson discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to change a brightness value of at least one of the first effect or the second effect (fig. 13, image object(s) or background brightness values may be changed, para 0086 and 0090).
As per claim 11, Johnson discloses a method of operating an electronic device, the method comprising:
identifying at least one object and a background excluding the at least one object in an image, wherein the image is obtained through at least one camera in a first light environment comprising a first light source,
determining a second light source different from the first light source,
determining at least one property to be applied to the background
applying a first effect to the at least one object, wherein the first effect comprises a light source effect corresponding to the second light source, and
applying a second effect to the background, wherein the second effect is based on the determined at least one property (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 1 above).
As per claim 12, Johnson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the light source effect comprises a relighting effect (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 2 above).
As per claim 13, Johnson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the second light source is a virtual light source having at least one property which is different from properties of the first light source (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 3 above).
As per claim 14, Johnson discloses the method of claim 13, wherein the second light source is different from at least one of an intensity of the first light source and a direction of the first light source (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 4 above).
As per claim 15, Johnson discloses the method of claim 11, wherein the second effect comprises a color effect (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 5 above).
As per claim 19, Johnson discloses the method of claim 11, the method further comprising applying a third effect different from the second effect to the background, wherein the third effect comprises a gradation effect (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 9 above).
As per claim 20, Johnson discloses the method of claim 11, the method further comprising changing a brightness value of at least one of the first effect or the second effect (claim limitations have been discussed and rejected, see claim 10 above).
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 6-8 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (US 2019/0080508 A1) in view of Borkman et al (US 2020/0410719 A1).
As per claim 6, The electronic device of wherein the at least one object comprises a first color, and wherein the color effect corresponds to a second color which is generated based on the first color.
Johnson fails to teach the limitations as recited above in claim 6. However, Borkman discloses a color prediction application wherein the color of an object can directly affect the color of the background generated (Borkman, fig. 9, color prediction application, para 0088, 0095).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Johnson in view of Borkman, as a whole, by incorporating the color prediction application as taught by Borman, into the computing device as taught by Johnson, because doing so would provide a more efficient way adjusting a background and foreground within a image, thus enhancing the visual clarity of the image.
As per claim 7, Johnson in view of Borkman, as a whole, further discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the first color is a color property of a specified type of object among the at least one object (Borkman, para 0063).
As per claim 8, Johnson in view of Borkman, as a whole, further discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the second color is generated based on a conversion of the first color (Borkman, para 0088).
As per claim 16, Johnson in view of Borkman, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 15, wherein the at least one object comprises a first color, and wherein the color effect corresponds to a second color which is generated based on the first color (claim limitation has been discussed and rejected, see claim 6 above).
As per claim 17, Johnson in view of Borkman, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the first color is a color property of a specified type of object among the at least one object (claim limitation has been discussed and rejected, see claim 7 above).
As per claim 18, Johnson in view of Borkman, as a whole, further discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the second color is generated based on a conversion of the first color (claim limitation has been discussed and rejected, see claim 8 above).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN H MOREHEAD III whose telephone number is (571)270-3845. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 0930-1800 EST.
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.
/JOHN H MOREHEAD III/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights