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 .
DETAILED ACTION
2. This is the initial Office Action based on the application filed on July 25, 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the following:
3. Claims 1 – 24 were filed by Applicant.
4. The drawings filed on the same date are accepted by the Examiner.
5. Current claims 1 – 24 are pending and they are being considered for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
6. The IDS document filed on filed on 07/25/2025 is acknowledged by the Examiner.
Priority
7. Priority data is based on a PCT/JP patent application PCT/JP2024/000940 with date of01/16/2024, which refers to a previous Japanese application JP2023-025527, with priority date of02/21/2023. Certified copies were filed to the office on08/19/2025.
Claim Interpretation under 112(f)
8. 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.
1. Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
2. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
3. Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
8. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first acquiring unit”, “a second acquiring unit”; “a selection unit”, “a display controlling unit”, “a notifying unit” and “a user interface control unit”, “an editing unit”, “a controlling unit”, “a recording unit” and “a deleting unit”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
9. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 23:
1. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U. S. C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claim 23 recites, “A computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program for causing a computer to execute an information processing method, the method comprising: acquiring a plurality of images respectively obtained by a plurality of image capturing devices; for each of the plurality of images, acquiring …”
3. An Examiner is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during examination. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal, per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter.
4. However, the Examiner respectfully submits a claim drawn to such a computer-readable storage medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation “non-transitory” to the claim. Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. For additional information, please see the Patents’ Official Gazette notice published February 23, 2010 (1351 OG 212).
Appropriate correction is needed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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 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 of this title, 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 – 13 and 19 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Haruki Mori et al., JP-2019134319 (A), hereinafter Mori” in view of “Eriko Ozaki, JP-2008245150 (A), hereinafter Ozaki”. (Note: Both arts are from the IDS document. The translation was provided by the Examiner
Mori teaches an image editing system that pays attention to a holder of a spherical body used in a competition. SOLUTION: A selection unit 23 selects an image in which a ball and a ball holder are specified by a specifying unit 22. More specifically, the selection unit 23 selects an image satisfying a condition related to a size in an image of the ball holder specified by the specifying unit 22 from images taken at the same time by a camera 100. Furthermore, the selection unit 23 selects an image that satisfies a condition regarding the player's action. Thereby, an image in which a representative action is performed by the ball holder in a game is selected.
Ozaki teaches a system which enables a useful video image to be appropriately provided to a user in accordance with the occurrence of a monitoring event. SOLUTION: A video display device that inputs a plurality of video images and displays a listing thereof on a display means comprises: a holding means for holding an evaluation value of each of the plurality of video images; an acquisition means for acquiring event information of a generated predetermined event in response to the occurrence of the event in at least any one of the plurality of inputted video images; an updating means which calculates a new evaluation value of the video image in which the event occurs, on the basis of the event information and uses the new evaluation value to update the evaluation values of the video images held by the holding means; and a display control means for displaying a listing of the plurality of inputted video images on the display means on the basis of the updated evaluation values.
Regarding Claim 1:
As for claim 1, Mori teaches,
An information processing apparatus (Fig 1, image editing system 1. See [0017]) comprising: at least one processor or circuit (Fig 3, CPU 201. See [0021]) and a memory storing instructions (Fig 3, ROM 202 is capable to store programs/instructions. See [0021]) to cause the at least one processor or circuit to perform operations (Fig 2, CPU 201. See [0021])of the following units: a first acquiring unit (Fig 1, cameras 100 include camera 100-1 or first camera. See [0019]). Fig 2, acquisition unit 21 acquires image data captured by the camera 100-1 via the network 900. See [0024]) configured to acquire a plurality of images respectively obtained by a plurality of image capturing devices; a second acquiring unit (Fig 1, camera 100-2 or second camera. See [0019]). Fig 2, acquisition unit 21 acquires image data captured by the camera 100-2 via the network 900. See [0024]) configured to acquire, for each of the plurality of images, a visual-quality evaluation value indicating a degree of visual quality of the image; and a selecting unit (Fig 3, selection unit 23 selects an image in which the ball and the ball holder have been identified by the identification unit 22, wherein the images are selected from the ones captured by camera 100 that satisfy the size conditions of the ball holder identified by the identification unit 22. See 0023; 0026]) configured to select one or more candidate images from among the plurality of images based on the visual-quality evaluation value, the one or more candidate images each being a candidate of an image to be used for viewing (For example, an image that satisfies the conditions regarding the size of the ball carrier in the image is either the image in which the ball carrier is the largest among images taken at the same time, or an image in which the ball carrier is larger than the threshold size among images taken at the same time. This will result in the selection of images in which the ball carrier is relatively large in the image. The See [0026; 0027]). Fig 2 shows the structure of the server device 200, which includes the generator unit 24 that generates a playback of the images captured by the camera(s) selected by the selection unit 23 and they are outputted by output unit 25 and to the display 300, which displays the image based on the playback data. Viewers can view/see the displayed images or digest images, which are then edited to focus on action scenes of the ball carrier, who is shown relatively prominently, allowing the viewers to easily understand the details of the game. See [0030]).
Even though Mori teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 and his system includes a way of selecting images which obey certain conditions, which are stored chronologically as to be used to show in a display and consequently to be edited, Mori is silent about “visual-evaluation value” in regards to the images selected, which, in the same field of endeavor is taught by Ozaki. Ozaki teaches a system that enables a useful video image to be appropriately provided to a user in accordance with the occurrence of a monitoring event: A video display device that inputs a plurality of video images and displays a listing thereof on a display means comprises: a holding means for holding an evaluation value of each of the plurality of video images; an acquisition means for acquiring event information of a generated predetermined event in response to the occurrence of the event in at least any one of the plurality of inputted video images; an updating means which calculates a new evaluation value of the video image in which the event occurs, on the basis of the event information and uses the new evaluation value to update the evaluation values of the video images held by the holding means; and a display control means for displaying a listing of the plurality of inputted video images on the display means on the basis of the updated evaluation values (See Abstract).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding Claim 24:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Mori combined with Ozaki teaches claim 1. As for claim 24 limitations, Mori teaches,
An information processing apparatus (Fig 1, image editing system 1. See [0017]) comprising: at least one processor (Fig 3, CPU 201. See [0021] or circuit and a memory (Fig 3, ROM 202. See [0021]) storing instructions to cause the at least one processor or circuit to perform operations of the following units: a first acquiring unit (Fig 1, cameras 100 include camera 100-1 or first camera. See [0019]). Fig 2, acquisition unit 21 acquires image data captured by the camera 100-1 via the network 900. See [0024]) configured to acquire a plurality of images respectively obtained by a plurality of image capturing devices; a second acquiring unit Fig 1, camera 100-2 or second camera. See [0019]). Fig 2, acquisition unit 21 acquires image data captured by the camera 100-2 via the network 900. See [0024]) configured to acquire, for each of the plurality of images, a visual-quality evaluation value indicating a degree of visual quality of the image; and a selecting unit (Fig 3, selection unit 23 selects an image in which the ball and the ball holder have been identified by the identification unit 22, wherein the images are selected from the ones captured by camera 100 that satisfy the size conditions of the ball holder identified by the identification unit 22. See 0023; 0026]) configured to select one or more images from the plurality of images based on the visual-quality evaluation values.
Even though Mori teaches most of the limitations of claim 1 and his system includes a way of selecting images which obey certain conditions, which are stored chronologically as to be used to show in a display and consequently to be edited, Mori is silent about “visual-evaluation value” in regards to the images selected, which, in the same field of endeavor is taught by Ozaki. Ozaki teaches a system that enables a useful video image to be appropriately provided to a user in accordance with the occurrence of a monitoring event: A video display device that inputs a plurality of video images and displays a listing thereof on a display means comprises: a holding means for holding an evaluation value of each of the plurality of video images; an acquisition means for acquiring event information of a generated predetermined event in response to the occurrence of the event in at least any one of the plurality of inputted video images; an updating means which calculates a new evaluation value of the video image in which the event occurs, on the basis of the event information and uses the new evaluation value to update the evaluation values of the video images held by the holding means; and a display control means for displaying a listing of the plurality of inputted video images on the display means on the basis of the updated evaluation values (See Abstract).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding claim 22:
The rejection of claims 1 and 24 is incorporated herein. Claim 22 pertains to the method steps performed as to operate the information processing apparatus of claim 1 or claim 24. Mori teaches the method steps as to acquire a plurality of images as seen in Fig 5, step S1; identifying images to be processed, step S2; image recognition to verify if the ball and the ball holder are seen in the image, step S4; select an image to verify if the setting condition as the size of it is satisfied, step S5. As for the visual evaluation values, Ozaki Fig 2 teaches the processing of controlling a display of a network camera based on the video evaluation values.
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding claim 23:
The rejection of claims 1, 24 and 22 is incorporated herein. Claim 23 pertains to a computer-readable storage medium storing the method steps as disclosed in claim 22 as to operate the information processing apparatus as disclosed in claims 1 and 24. In order to operate the information processing apparatus of claims 1 and 24 by using the method steps as disclosed in claim 22, it would have necessitated to have the method steps written as a program/instructions stored in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium as disclosed in claim 23. As for the storage medium, Mori teaches a ROM 202 (Fig 3; [0021]).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding Claims 2 – 3 and 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claims 2 and 3 limitations, Mori Fig 1 includes a display terminal 300 (See [0018; 0020]), Fig 2, shows the server 200, which may include other components such as a display unit or an operation unit (See [0022]). Ozaki teaches a video display device that inputs a plurality of video images and displays a listing thereof on a display means comprises: a holding means for holding an evaluation value of each of the plurality of video images; an acquisition means for acquiring event information of a generated predetermined event in response to the occurrence of the event in at least any one of the plurality of inputted video images; an updating means which calculates a new evaluation value of the video image in which the event occurs, on the basis of the event information and uses the new evaluation value to update the evaluation values of the video images held by the holding means; and a display control means for displaying a listing of the plurality of inputted video images on the display means on the basis of the updated evaluation values (See Abstract).
As for claim 7 as seen in Ozaki Fig 5 in the turtle video 501 and the tiger video 502, an event was detected and the evaluation value increased, so the display control is set to enlarge them to four times the size of the other video 503. In this way, by enlarging the video with a high rating, it becomes easier to see in the list view that important events have occurred. Here, the system is controlled to enlarge the top two videos with the highest ratings, but it would also be possible to enlarge videos once they reach a certain rating. As shown above, in the example in Figure 5, the display control unit 103 determines the size of each image based on its image value and displays each image at that size, thereby highlighting images with high image value (See [0047]). In this embodiment, two examples of display control for important video content are shown: one where the video is displayed at the top of the list, and another where it is displayed enlarged in the upper section (See [0048]). It is possible to display a rank of the visual-quality evaluation value of each of the candidate images.
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding Claim 4:
The rejection of claims 1 – 3 is incorporated herein. As for claim 4 limitations, Mori teaches that for example, in the example of operation of the embodiment as seen in Fig 4, steps S6 and S8 determined whether or not the conditions related to the player's actions were met, but this determination process may be performed before, for example, the process of determining whether or not there is a ball holder (step S4). Each aspect may be used individually, in combination, or switched between during execution. Furthermore, notification of specified information (for example, notification that "X" is the case) is not limited to explicit notification but may also be done implicitly (See [0052]). Mori also teaches that as seen in Fig 2, the selection unit 23 stores the identifier of the predetermined camera 100, and when it detects a period in which the number of changes per unit time of the camera 100 exceeds a threshold, it can select the image captured by the camera 100 with the stored identifier (See [0044]).
Additionally, it is well known that mobiles or equipment with cameras notify the user about the conditions of the camera whether it is ready for capture or not. Ozaki system acquires event information and it has to inform the user as for him/her to proceed with the operation as to capture any video (See Abstract).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding Claim 5:
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 is incorporated herein. As for claim 5 limitations, Ozaki Fig 1, video display device 100 is connected to one or more network cameras, wherein the video value calculation unit 102 calculates a video value (evaluation value) based on event information received from the event detection unit 101, which serves as an indicator of whether the video from the network camera is important (See [0024]). The display control unit 103 controls the display of images from the network camera so that images with high image value calculated by the image value calculation unit 102 are displayed (highlighted) to attract the user's attention (See [0025]).
Video evaluation value = Σ((detection amount - threshold) × event importance) (1) Equation (1) calculates the difference between the detection amount and the threshold, that is, how much the detection amount of events acquired by the event detection unit 101 exceeds the preset threshold that serves as the basis for event detection. Then, the difference (excess detection) is multiplied by the importance of the event. The evaluation
value is calculated by summing the values for each type of event detected (See [0036]).
In order for the user to choose the candidate images, a whole list of captured images should be presented on the display, wherein it is possible using the features taught by Ozaki as for selecting the images with the highest evaluation above the threshold, which should be distinguishable from images with the lower evaluation values (See [0034; 0036]).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claims 1 and 2 is incorporated herein. As for claim 6 limitations, Mori teaches that the identification unit 22 uses image recognition techniques such as feature point extraction and pattern matching in each image captured by the multiple cameras 100 to identify the ball used in the game, the players participating in the game, and the ball holder who is holding the ball (See [0025]). Then, the identification unit 22 performs image recognition on the image data to identify the ball and the ball holder (step S3). Ball recognition is performed by comparing pre-stored ball feature point data with image data. Identifying the ball carrier involves first matching pre-stored (or pre-registered) human feature point data with image data to identify the player and then estimating the distance between the ball and each player (or the equipment used by that player) and determining whether that distance is below a threshold (See [0033]).
Ozaki teaches, for example, motion detection can detect whether a movement matches a pre-set movement and then highlight and display the video containing that pre-set movement. Furthermore, the face detection function can detect any pre-registered face and highlight and display images that show that registered face. Therefore, for example, even if multiple tigers are being filmed by a camera that films tigers (tiger camera), it is possible to detect a special event when a pre-set tiger that viewers wish to view is filmed. Therefore, it becomes possible to search for and highlight the video portion containing the desired tiger (See [0057]).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claim 8 limitations, Mori Fig 1, image editing system 1 (See [0017]).
Regarding claim 9:
The rejection of claims 1 and 8 is incorporated herein. As for claim 9 limitations, Ozaki Fig 5 in the turtle video 501 and the tiger video 502, an event was detected and the evaluation value increased, so the display control is set to enlarge them to four times the size of the other video 503. In this way, by enlarging the video with a high rating, it becomes easier to see in the list view that important events have occurred. Here, the system is controlled to enlarge the top two videos with the highest ratings, but it would also be possible to enlarge videos once they reach a certain rating. As shown above, in the example in Figure 5, the display control unit 103 determines the size of each image based on its image value and displays each image at that size, thereby highlighting images with high image value (See [0047]).
Regarding Claims 10 and 11:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claims 10 and 11, Mori teaches that to make this determination of a motion (See Fig 4), the identification unit 22 also performs image recognition on images taken before and after the image data to be processed (the preceding and succeeding scenes) to identify the ball or the ball holder. Furthermore, the selection unit 23 recognizes the chronological movement of the identified ball or ball holder. If this movement corresponds to the movement of a specific action (a time-series movement trajectory of the feature point data of the ball or the ball holder) that is pre-stored in the selection unit 23, the selection unit 23 determines that the image satisfies the conditions related to the player's actions (i.e., it corresponds to a specific action) (step S6; YES). In particular, the determination of whether an action is a shot is made based on the movement of the ball (ball's position, direction of movement, and speed of movement), the imaging range of camera 100, and the positional relationship of the goal, by determining whether the ball is moving towards the goal at a speed greater than a predetermined speed (See [0035].
Ozaki teaches that tiger camera detects a motion event (detection level 15, threshold 5, importance level 2) and a sound event (detection level 50, threshold 50, importance level 1), the evaluation values would be as follows. Video evaluation score = ((15 ÷ 5) × 2) + ((50 ÷ 50) × 1) = 7. According to this, even if different metrics such as motion event detection and sound event detection are used, they can be compared using the same evaluation score. Therefore, it becomes possible to find videos based on a single criterion—whether or not they are important—without having to search for videos by specifying an event. Therefore, using the same evaluation value solves the problem where valuable footage of objects with little movement gets buried among other footage, preventing users from missing the footage they want (See [0045]).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Regarding Claim 12:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claim 12, Ozaki teaches in Fig 6, motion detection can detect whether a movement matches a pre-set movement and then highlight and display the video containing that pre-set movement. Furthermore, the face detection function can detect any pre-registered face (or pre-registered image of a face) and highlight and display images that show that registered face. Therefore, for example, even if multiple tigers are being filmed by a camera that films tigers (tiger camera), it is possible to detect a special event when a pre-set tiger that viewers wish to view is filmed. Therefore, it becomes possible to search for and highlight the video portion containing the desired tiger (See [0057]).
Regarding claim 13:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claim 13, Mori teaches that the identifying unit may identify the holder based on the distance between the spherical object and each competitor and the distance between the ball and each player (See [0007; 0025; 0033]. Fig 4, once the ball carrier is identified (step S9; YES), the selection unit 23 determines whether the previously selected image data satisfies the conditions regarding the size of the ball carrier in the image (step S10) (See [0039]). Furthermore,
the selection unit 23 selected images from among those captured at the same time that met the size requirements for the holder in the image. However, whether or not these size requirements are met is not necessarily required, and the selection unit 23 may simply select images in which the holder identified by the identification unit 22 is present (See [0045]). Therefore, the size of the ball and the size of a player can be determined and the distances between them can be determined as well.
Regarding claims 19, 20 and 21:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claim 19 and 20, Mori teaches that Fig 2, server 200 may be provided with a recording medium, wherein programs being used by the system (See [0057]) and nothing precludes the recording medium to have the images being recorded in it. It also teaches that the selection unit can select the images chronologically (See [0029; 0035]). As for the edit, Mori teaches in Fig 1, image editing system 1 (See [0017]). As for the visual quality evaluation values, Ozaki teaches a system that enables a useful video image to be appropriately provided to a user in accordance with the occurrence of a monitoring event: A video display device that inputs a plurality of video images and displays a listing thereof on a display means comprises: a holding means for holding an evaluation value of each of the plurality of video images; an acquisition means for acquiring event information of a generated predetermined event in response to the occurrence of the event in at least any one of the plurality of inputted video images; an updating means which calculates a new evaluation value of the video image in which the event occurs, on the basis of the event information and uses the new evaluation value to update the evaluation values of the video images held by the holding means; and a display control means for displaying a listing of the plurality of inputted video images on the display means on the basis of the updated evaluation values (See Abstract). As for “deleting unit”, Ozaki teaches that the video stored in the memory will be deleted after a certain period of time or other videos will be deleted when the storage capacity exceeds a certain amount. Therefore, nothing in Ozaki precludes that the videos or images with low quality are eliminated/deleted as to save space in the memory for new videos (See [0075]).
By modifying Mori with the teachings of Ozaki that provide the user with a holding means, which holds an evaluation value for each of the plurality of video images, that would benefit the user to be able to monitor an event and get a useful video image (See Ozaki Abstract and [0006]).
Claims 14 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Haruki Mori et al., JP-2019134319 (A), hereinafter Mori” in view of “Eriko Ozaki, JP-2008245150 (A), hereinafter Ozaki” and in further view of “Chi Sun Kim et al., US 2021/0136296 A1, hereinafter Kim”.
Regarding claims 14 – 16:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. As for claims 14 – 16, in Fig 1,
Mori teaches the capturing of multiple images with different cameras 100-1, 100-2 and 100-3, wherein images of players in a field from different positions and angles (See [0018]). Images captured at the same time by another camera 100, which captures images at a different angle than the first camera 100, may be used in conjunction to estimate the distance between the ball and each player (or the equipment used by that player). For estimating this distance, it is desirable to use images taken at an angle where the ball and the player (or the equipment used by the player) do not overlap in the image (See [0033; 0044]).
As for the selecting process for images, Ozaki teaches a system that enables a useful video image to be appropriately provided to a user in accordance with the occurrence of a monitoring event: A video display device that inputs a plurality of video images and displays a listing thereof on a display means comprises: a holding means for holding an evaluation value of each of the plurality of video images; an acquisition means for acquiring event information of a generated predetermined event in response to the occurrence of the event in at least any one of the plurality of inputted video images; an updating means which calculates a new evaluation value of the video image in which the event occurs, on the basis of the event information and uses the new evaluation value to update the evaluation values of the video images held by the holding means; and a display control means for displaying a listing of the plurality of inputted video images on the display means on the basis of the updated evaluation values (See Abstract).
However, both are silent about having the first camera as a telephoto camera and the second camera as a wide-angle camera, which in the same field of endeavor is taught by Kim. Kim Fig 1 teaches a mobile device 101 with two cameras 150, wherein the first camera 151 is a telephoto camera and the second one 152 is a wide-angle camera (See [0035 – 0040]).
By modifying the combination of Mori and Ozaki and using the teachings of Kim wherein the first camera is a telephoto camera and the second one is a wide-angle camera, that would allow the user to control the depth effect in the process of displaying the preview image using the plurality of images taken by the plurality of cameras using different angles of view from each other (See Kim [0008]).
Claim Objections
11. claims 17 and 18 are objected as being dependent to a rejected claim. However, they would be allowable if written into independent form.
Conclusion
12. The prior art is made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
1. C. Kim et al., US 2021/0136296 A1 – it teaches an electronic device includes a first camera, a second camera, a display, a memory, and a processor. The processor collects a first image obtained by the first camera with respect to an external object and a second image obtained by the second camera with respect to the external object, generates a third image with respect to the external object using a first area of the first image and a second area of the second image, which corresponds to the first area, identifies an input associated with the third image displayed through the display, and displays an image generated using at least one of the first image, the second image, or depth information in response to the input.
Contact
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARLY CAMARGO whose telephone number is (571)270-3729. The examiner can normally be reached on 6:00AM - 10PM, M-F, EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lin Ye can be reached on (571)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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARLY S CAMARGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights