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
This Office Action is in response to Application No. 19/307,506 filed 08/22/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2025 and 04/20/2026 were considered by the examiner.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 15, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US 6,246,413) in view of Komeichi et al. (US 2019/0180714), herein Komeichi.
Consider claim 1, Teo clearly teaches an electronic device (Fig. 10) comprising:
at least one processor comprising processing circuitry; (Fig. 10: Processor 1002, col. 11 lines 10-40)
a display; (Fig. 10: Display device 1006, col. 11 lines 10-40) and
memory comprising one or more storage media storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, wherein the one or more programs include instructions (Fig. 10, col. 11 lines 10-40) to cause the electronic device to:
obtain a first panorama image corresponding to a planar panorama image; (Figs. 1A, 3: A plurality of images are stitched together and projected onto a planar surface to form first panoramic image 112, col. 6 lines 53-63, col. 7 lines 27-35, col. 10 lines 6-9.)
detect an event to convert the first panorama image to a second panorama image; (Fig. 1A: User interface 114 receives input to modify the surface geometry, col. 7 lines 34-37.)
based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image; (Fig. 1A: Image processor 118 transforms first panoramic image 112 into second panoramic image 120, col. 7 lines 37-46.) and
display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image. (Figs. 2, 4B: Display device 204 displays second panoramic image 120, col. 9 lines 1-10.)
However, Teo does not explicitly teach based on the detection, obtain a depth value of the first panorama image; obtain a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image.
In an analogous art, Komeichi, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches:
based on the detection, obtain a depth value of the first panorama image; (Figs. 4, 5: In step s107 selection receiving unit 102 receives user input of a target point and a distance r is calculated by distance calculator 105, [0053], [0084], [0085].)
obtain a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; (Figs. 3-5: In step s109 the radius of the projection sphere R is set to be equal to the calculated distance r by the projection sphere setting unit 106, [0064]-[0066], [0086].)
based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image. (Figs. 4, 5: In step s105 display device 400 displays the panoramic image with the updated projection radius R, [0048], [0086].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo by based on the detection, obtain a depth value of the first panorama image; obtain a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image, as taught by Komeichi, for the benefit of correcting deviations in the panoramic image.
Consider claim 3, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: based on the detection, determine, from among objects included in the first panorama image, a reference object; identify a depth value on the reference object; and obtain the depth value on the reference object as the depth value of the first panorama image. (Figs. 4, 5: In step s107 selection receiving unit 102 receives user input of a target point and a distance r is calculated by distance calculator 105, [0053], [0084], [0085] Komeichi.)
Consider claim 4, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the curvature for generating the second panorama image, is inversely proportional to the depth value of the first panorama image. (Fig. 3: The radius R increases as the distance r increases thereby decreasing the curvature of the projection surface, [0064]-[0066], [0086] Komeichi.)
Consider claim 9, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: while displaying, via the display, the first panorama image, receive a user input to display the second panorama image; and based on the user input, detect the event. (Figs. 1A, 4A, 4B: User interface 114 receives input to modify the surface geometry while displaying the visibly distorted panoramic image, col. 7 lines 27-46, col. 8 line 59 to col. 9 line 10 Teo.)
Consider claim 15, Teo clearly teaches a method executed in an electronic device comprising a display, (Fig. 1A) the method comprising:
obtaining a first planar panorama image corresponding to a planar panorama image; (Figs. 1A, 3: A plurality of images are stitched together and projected onto a planar surface to form first panoramic image 112, col. 6 lines 53-63, col. 7 lines 27-35, col. 10 lines 6-9.)
detecting an event to convert the first panorama image to a second panorama image; (Fig. 1A: User interface 114 receives input to modify the surface geometry, col. 7 lines 34-37.)
based on the first panorama image, generating the second panorama image; (Fig. 1A: Image processor 118 transforms first panoramic image 112 into second panoramic image 120, col. 7 lines 37-46.)
and
displaying, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image. (Figs. 2, 4B: Display device 204 displays second panoramic image 120, col. 9 lines 1-10.)
However, Teo does not explicitly teach based on the detection, obtaining a depth value of the first panorama image; obtaining a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; based on the first panorama image, generating the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and displaying, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image.
In an analogous art, Komeichi, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches:
based on the detection, obtaining a depth value of the first panorama image; (Figs. 4, 5: In step s107 selection receiving unit 102 receives user input of a target point and a distance r is calculated by distance calculator 105, [0053], [0084], [0085].)
obtaining a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; (Figs. 3-5: In step s109 the radius of the projection sphere R is set to be equal to the calculated distance r by the projection sphere setting unit 106, [0064]-[0066], [0086].)
based on the first panorama image, generating the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and displaying, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image. (Figs. 4, 5: In step s105 display device 400 displays the panoramic image with the updated projection radius R, [0048], [0086].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo by based on the detection, obtaining a depth value of the first panorama image; obtaining a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; based on the first panorama image, generating the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and displaying, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image, as taught by Komeichi, for the benefit of correcting deviations in the panoramic image.
Consider claim 17, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches based on the detection, determining, from among objects included in the first panorama image, a reference object; identifying a depth value on the reference object; and obtaining the depth value on the reference object as the depth value of the first panorama image. (Figs. 4, 5: In step s107 selection receiving unit 102 receives user input of a target point and a distance r is calculated by distance calculator 105, [0053], [0084], [0085] Komeichi.)
Consider claim 20, Teo clearly teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions to, when executed by an electronic device with a display, (Fig. 10, col. 11 lines 10-40) cause the electronic device to:
obtain a first panorama image corresponding to a planar panorama image; (Figs. 1A, 3: A plurality of images are stitched together and projected onto a planar surface to form first panoramic image 112, col. 6 lines 53-63, col. 7 lines 27-35, col. 10 lines 6-9.)
detect an event to convert the first panorama image to a second panorama image; (Fig. 1A: User interface 114 receives input to modify the surface geometry, col. 7 lines 34-37.)
based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image; (Fig. 1A: Image processor 118 transforms first panoramic image 112 into second panoramic image 120, col. 7 lines 37-46.) and
display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image. (Figs. 2, 4B: Display device 204 displays second panoramic image 120, col. 9 lines 1-10.)
However, Teo does not explicitly teach based on the detection, obtain a depth value of the first panorama image; obtain a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image.
In an analogous art, Komeichi, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches:
based on the detection, obtain a depth value of the first panorama image; (Figs. 4, 5: In step s107 selection receiving unit 102 receives user input of a target point and a distance r is calculated by distance calculator 105, [0053], [0084], [0085].)
obtain a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; (Figs. 3-5: In step s109 the radius of the projection sphere R is set to be equal to the calculated distance r by the projection sphere setting unit 106, [0064]-[0066], [0086].)
based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image. (Figs. 4, 5: In step s105 display device 400 displays the panoramic image with the updated projection radius R, [0048], [0086].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo by based on the detection, obtain a depth value of the first panorama image; obtain a curvature for generating the second panorama image using the depth value of the first panorama image; based on the first panorama image, generate the second panorama image in accordance with the curvature; and display, via the display, a portion of the second panorama image, as taught by Komeichi, for the benefit of correcting deviations in the panoramic image.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US 6,246,413) in view of Komeichi et al. (US 2019/0180714) in view of Kumar et al. (US 2026/0065497), herein Kumar.
Consider claim 2, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the depth value is obtained by: identifying depth values on objects included in the first panorama image.
However, Teo combined with Komeichi does not explicitly teach obtaining an average value of the depth values as the depth value of the first panorama image.
In an analogous art, Kumar, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches obtaining an average value of the depth values as the depth value of the first panorama image. (Fig. 2: An average distance to object 250 is calculated, [0118], [0148], [0271].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo combined with Komeichi by obtaining an average value of the depth values as the depth value of the first panorama image, as taught by Kumar, for the benefit of obtaining accurate distance information.
Consider claim 16, Teo combined with Komeichi and Kumar clearly teaches the depth value is obtained by: identifying depth values on objects included in the first panorama image; and obtaining an average value of the depth values as the depth value of the first panorama image. (Fig. 2: An average distance to object 250 is calculated, [0118], [0148], [0271] Kumar.)
Claims 5, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US 6,246,413) in view of Komeichi et al. (US 2019/0180714) in view of Lin et al. (US 2024/0402870), herein Lin.
Consider claim 5, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the second panorama image is generated by projecting the first panorama image on at least a portion of a mesh having a radius in accordance with the curvature. (Figs. 3-5: In step s105 display device 400 displays the panoramic image with the updated projection radius R, [0048], [0086].)
However, Teo combined with Komeichi does not explicitly teach projecting the panorama image on at least a portion of a cylinder mesh.
In an analogous art, Lin, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches projecting the panorama image on at least a portion of a cylinder mesh. (Fig. 7K1: The panoramic image is projected onto cylinder 748, [0210].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo combined with Komeichi by projecting the panorama image on at least a portion of a cylinder mesh, as taught by Lin, to achieve the predictable result of displaying a panoramic image.
Consider claim 11, Teo combined with Komeichi and Lin clearly teaches the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: while displaying the portion of the second panorama image, receive a scroll input; and based on the scroll input, display, via the display, another portion of the second panorama image. (Fig. 7L: The viewpoint changes based on user input, [0210] Lin.)
Consider claim 13, Teo combined with Komeichi and Lin clearly teaches at least one sensor configured to obtain sensing values in accordance with a change of a posture of the electronic device, wherein the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: while displaying the portion of the second panorama image, obtain, via the at least one sensor, a sensing value; and display, via the display, another portion of the second panorama image corresponding to the sensing value. (Fig. 7L: The viewpoint changes based on user head movement detected by sensors 190, [0039], [0210] Lin.)
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US 6,246,413) in view of Komeichi et al. (US 2019/0180714) in view of Moshe et al. (US 2021/0068773), herein Moshe.
Consider claim 10, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: display, via the display, the first panorama image and the second panorama image.
However, Teo combined with Komeichi does not explicitly teach display, via the display, an animation gradually changed from the first panorama image to the second panorama image; and based on identifying that the animation is terminated, display, via the display, the portion of the second panorama image.
In an analogous art, Moshe, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches display, via the display, an animation gradually changed from the first panorama image to the second panorama image; and based on identifying that the animation is terminated, display, via the display, the portion of the second panorama image. (A morphing animation is displayed during transition from a first panoramic image to a second panoramic image, [0143].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo combined with Komeichi by display, via the display, an animation gradually changed from the first panorama image to the second panorama image; and based on identifying that the animation is terminated, display, via the display, the portion of the second panorama image, as taught by Moshe, for the benefit of creating a more user friendly display.
Claims 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teo (US 6,246,413) in view of Komeichi et al. (US 2019/0180714) in view of Omlor et al. (US 2024/0177346), herein Omlor.
Consider claim 14, Teo combined with Komeichi clearly teaches the second panorama image.
However, Teo combined with Komeichi does not explicitly teach the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: identify an object representing a light source in the image; and based on a position of the object in the portion of the image, display a lens flare effect as associated with the object on the portion of the image.
In an analogous art, Omlor, which discloses a system for image processing, clearly teaches the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: identify an object representing a light source in the image; and based on a position of the object in the portion of the image, display a lens flare effect as associated with the object on the portion of the image. (Fig. 2: Flare image 40 is inserted into image 30 based on the position of illuminant 32, [0047]-[0049].)
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Teo combined with Komeichi by the one or more programs include instructions to cause the electronic device to: identify an object representing a light source in the image; and based on a position of the object in the portion of the image, display a lens flare effect as associated with the object on the portion of the image, as taught by Omlor, for the benefit of enhancing the displayed images.
Consider claim 18, Teo combined with Komeichi and Omlor clearly teaches identifying an object representing a light source in the second panorama image; obtaining a lens flare effect using a coordinate of the object representing the light source in a 3D space; and displaying, via the display, the lens flare effect as associated with the object on the portion of the second panorama image using the coordinate of the object. (Fig. 2: Flare image 40 is inserted into image 30 based on the position of illuminant 32, [0047]-[0049] Omlor.)
Consider claim 19, Teo combined with Komeichi and Omlor clearly teaches the lens flare effect differs based on a position of the object representing the light source in the second panorama image. (Fig. 2: Flare image 40 is inserted into image 30 based on the position of illuminant 32, [0047]-[0049] Omlor.)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 12 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
In the case of amending the claimed invention, applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN R SCHNURR whose telephone number is (571)270-1458. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6a-4p.
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, Brian Pendleton can be reached at (571)272-7527. 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 R SCHNURR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights