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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/12/2025 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lablans (US PgPub No. 2010/0097444).
Regarding claim 1, Lablans teaches a processing device that processes images (figure 1 items 109, 111 also figure 35) captured by a plurality of cameras (figure 1 items 101 – 103), the processing device comprising a processor (figure 1 item 111 also figure 35 item 3507), wherein the processor is configured to: set a plurality of independent image display regions corresponding to the plurality of cameras on a first screen that outputs to a display destination (figures 30 – 31; also figure 1 item 112 display); and display, in the plurality of image display regions, images of the plurality of cameras in a state where a first range in which images overlap each other between images of the cameras adjacent to each other and a second range in which the images do not overlap each other are identifiable (Figure 31 display, in the plurality of image display regions, images of the plurality of cameras in a state where a first range in which images overlap each other between images of the cameras adjacent to each other and a second range in which the images do not overlap each other are identifiable; also figures 2 – 4, 9, 16 – 17, 27 – 28, 32 – 33, 60).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the plurality of cameras include a pair of cameras having imaging regions overlapping each other (Figure 31 also figures 2 – 4, 9, 16 – 17, 27 – 28, 32 – 33, 60; plurality of cameras include a pair of cameras having imaging regions overlapping each other).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to set the plurality of image display regions in a layout corresponding to disposition of the plurality of cameras (Figure 31 also figures 2 – 4, 9, 16 – 17, 27 – 28, 32 – 33, 60; wherein the processor is configured to set the plurality of image display regions in a layout corresponding to disposition of the plurality of cameras).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to detect the first range and/or the second range by processing the images of the plurality of cameras (figures 62 – 64 also 2 – 4, 9, 16 – 17, 27 – 28, 31 – 33, 60; the processor is configured to detect the first range and/or the second range by processing the images of the plurality of cameras via detecting imaging area and area of overlap).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to acquire information related to a subject and information related to the plurality of cameras and detect the first range and/or the second range based on the acquired information (paragraph 0029; detect same object in both camera images and finding location based on the subject also figure 31).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 4, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: calculate an overlap ratio of the images displayed in the image display regions based on the first range and/or the second range (figure 31; ratio being the overlap region); and display the overlap ratio on the first screen (figure 31; ratio being the overlap region being displayed).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 6, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine appropriateness of settings of the plurality of cameras based on the overlap ratio (figure 31; selection area in relation with the multiple images and overlap); and display a determination result on the first screen (figure 31; displaying selection area in relation with the multiple images and overlap).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 6, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: acquire correction conditions of settings of the plurality of cameras based on the overlap ratio (figure 31); and display the correction conditions on the first screen (figure 31).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to display the images, which are captured by the plurality of cameras in chronological order, in the image display regions in chronological (figure 31 and paragraphs 0175, 0188, 0199, 0233, 0247, 0315, 0323 real time display).
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:
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.
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 10 – 17 and 20 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lablans (US PgPub No. 2010/0097444) in view of MISAWA (US PgPub No. 2019/0028654).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: acquire information on the plurality of cameras (figure 31; information related to cameras i.e. capturing area); and display the information on the plurality of cameras (figure 31).
However, Lablans fails to teach displaying on a second screen different from the first screen. MISAWA, on the other hand teaches displaying on a second screen different from the first screen.
More specifically, MISAWA teaches displaying on a second screen different from the first screen (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a second display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 10, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: acquire information related to a subject (paragraph 0029; detect same object in both camera images and finding location based on the subject also figure 31); estimate imaging parameters of the plurality of cameras, which are set in a case of imaging the subject, based on the acquired information (paragraph 0029; detect same object in both camera images and finding location based on the subject also figure 31); and set the imaging parameters of the plurality of cameras in accordance with an estimation result (paragraph 0029; detect same object in both camera images and finding location based on the subject also figure 31 and adjusting camera according to subject).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 10, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the information on the cameras includes at least one type of information related to imaging parameters, information related to an available storage capacity, or information related to a battery (paragraph 0029; detect same object in both camera images and finding location based on the subject also figure 31 and adjusting camera according to subject).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: receive individually or collectively a change in the imaging parameters of the plurality of cameras (figure 31); and change individually or collectively the imaging parameters of the cameras in accordance with received content (figure 31).
However, Lablans fails to teach parameters on the second screen. MISAWA, on the other hand teaches parameters on the second screen.
More specifically, MISAWA teaches parameters on the second screen (figure 1 item 32, also figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a second display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine appropriateness of states of the plurality of cameras based on the information on the plurality of cameras (figure 31).
However, Lablans fails to teach display a determination result on the second screen. MISAWA, on the other hand teaches display a determination result on the second screen.
More specifically, MISAWA teaches display a determination result on the second screen (figure 1 item 32, also figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a second display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, Lablans teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to display recorded images of the plurality of cameras (figure 31).
However, Lablans fails to teach displaying on a third screen different from the first screen. MISAWA, on the other hand teaches displaying on a third screen different from the first screen.
More specifically, MISAWA teaches displaying on a third screen different from the first screen (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6; note: there is no discussion of a second screen in the claim hence the second screen is taken as not being present and/or taken as being as being part/section of the first screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a third display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 15, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: panoramically compose the recorded images of the plurality of cameras (figure 31); and display a panoramically composed image (figure 31).
However, Lablans fails to teach displaying on the third screen. MISAWA, on the other hand teaches displaying on the third screen.
More specifically, MISAWA teaches displaying on the third screen (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6; note: there is no discussion of a second screen in the claim hence the second screen is taken as not being present and/or taken as being as being part/section of the first screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a third display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 15, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, Lablans teaches wherein the processor is configured to: determine appropriateness of imaging with respect to the recorded images of the plurality of cameras based on the images and/or information added to the images (figure 31); and display a determination result (figure 31).
However, Lablans fails to teach displaying on the third screen. MISAWA, on the other hand teaches displaying on the third screen.
More specifically, MISAWA teaches displaying on the third screen (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6; note: there is no discussion of a second screen in the claim hence the second screen is taken as not being present and/or taken as being as being part/section of the first screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a third display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 20, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 15, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, MISAWA teaches receive selection of an image on the third screen (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6 also paragraphs 0069 and 0129; note: there is no discussion of a second screen in the claim hence the second screen is taken as not being present and/or taken as being as being part/section of the first screen); and display an imaging parameter of the selected image on the third screen (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6; note: there is no discussion of a second screen in the claim hence the second screen is taken as not being present and/or taken as being as being part/section of the first screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a third display for improved usability.
Regarding claim 21, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 20, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
Additionally, MISAWA teaches wherein the processor is configured to display, on the third screen, the imaging parameter of the selected image and an imaging parameter of the camera in a case of imaging the selected image in a comparable state (figure 1 items 22 and 32, also figure 6 also paragraphs 0069 and 0129; note: there is no discussion of a second screen in the claim hence the second screen is taken as not being present and/or taken as being as being part/section of the first screen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of MISAWA with the teachings of Lablans to have a system of improved usability by displaying captured images in a first display and image information in a third display for improved usability.
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lablans (US PgPub No. 2010/0097444) in view of MISAWA (US PgPub No. 2019/0028654) in view of Rychagov (US PgPub No. 2007/0041657).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 17, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Lablans in view of MISAWA fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the appropriateness of the imaging based on a histogram of the images. Rychagov, on the other hand teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the appropriateness of the imaging based on a histogram of the images.
More specifically, Rychagov teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the appropriateness of the imaging based on a histogram of the images (abstract, paragraphs 0012 – 0013, 0016, and figures 12 – 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Rychagov with the teachings of Lablans to in view of MISAWA because Rychagov teaches in at least paragraphs 0006, 0024, 0063 – 0064, 0077, and 0090 that using the system results in improved image quality, thereby improving images in Lablans in view of MISAWA.
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 17, Lablans in view of MISAWA teach all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, Lablans in view of MISAWA fail to teach wherein the processor is configured to determine the appropriateness of the imaging based on information on imaging parameters added to the images. Rychagov, on the other hand teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the appropriateness of the imaging based on information on imaging parameters added to the images.
More specifically, Rychagov teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the appropriateness of the imaging based on information on imaging parameters added to the images (abstract, paragraphs 0012 – 0013, 0016, and figures 12 – 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of Rychagov with the teachings of Lablans to in view of MISAWA because Rychagov teaches in at least paragraphs 0006, 0024, 0063 – 0064, 0077, and 0090 that using the system results in improved image quality, thereby improving images in Lablans in view of MISAWA.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Henley (US patent No. 5657073) teaches an imaging system for the production of panoramic or panospheric output images in still or video formats, by seamlessly merging an arbitrary number of simultaneous, overlapping input images which collectively encompass an entire field of view.
Foote (US patent No. 7015954) teaches a camera array captures plural component images which are combined into a single scene from which "panning" and "zooming" within the scene are performed. In one embodiment, each camera of the array is a fixed digital camera.
Baudisch (US patent No. 7424218) teaches a "Panoramic Viewfinder" provides an intuitive interactive viewfinder display which operates on a digital camera display screen.
Park (US patent No. 7620909) teaches an interactive computer program for seaming a number of images into a panorama. Various parameters which affect how the images are seamed can be changed interactively.
Saporetti (US patent No. 10354426) teaches reduce the overlap areas of the fields of view of multiple cameras when reading symbols (e.g., barcode symbols, text) disposed on moving objects using an imaging system which includes an array of cameras.
Mu (US patent No. 10481482) teaches generating panoramic images.
Macmillan (US patent No. 10805559) teaches multiple cameras are arranged in an array at a pitch, roll, and yaw that allow the cameras to have adjacent fields of view such that each camera is pointed inward relative to the array.
Roulet (US patent No. 10958834) teaches a system for assembling panoramic images of a scene captured by a panoramic image capture device having a decoding unit configured to read image content data from the image capture device, an information reading unit configured to extract device parameters about the capture device, and an image processing unit configured to assemble an output image using the image content data and the device parameters.
Numata (US patent No. 11240446) teaches an order to be able to appropriately control whether to generate a wide-angle image in accordance with control of an imaging range of the plurality of imaging units, an imaging device includes: a first imaging unit and a second imaging unit, each of which is movable in a predetermined direction.
Song (US patent No. 11843863) teaches a method for generating a panorama image.
Park (US PgPub No. 20080117288) teaches a panoramic imaging system includes a plurality of separated video cameras that may be distributed around an object.
KWAK (US PgPub No. 20140098188) teaches a multi display device and a method of photographing.
Wang (US PgPub No. 20160077422) teaches photography across multiple digital camera devices.
CAO (US PgPub No. 20160295108) teaches a system for panoramic imaging.
Shimauchi (US PgPub No. 20180227485) teaches an image pickup apparatus, image processing apparatus and corresponding program and method are disclosed.
Kurtz (US patent No. 12287465) teaches a low parallax imaging device includes a dome defining an interior volume in which a plurality of imaging lens elements are disposed.
Houvener (US PgPub No. 20070097206) teaches photography across multiple digital camera devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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 on (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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
08/25/2026
Prosecution Insights