DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claim recites “at least one direction pair….at least one direction pair are outside the hole, where each of the at least one direction pair comprises two opposite directions corresponding to the position in the hole,” but said limitation is not supported in the original disclosure. Foremost, the limitation “pair” is not even mentioned anywhere in the original disclosure. Additionally, the original disclosure discloses multi-directions, but does not disclose any pairing or pairings. According to the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, pair is defined as two corresponding things designed for use together, but the original disclosure does not disclose two specific directions and a plurality of two specific directions that are being used together as unit(s). The left and right direction are disclosed, but it is merely provided as two exemplary directions of many different directions that can be used together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
4. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without being integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline, Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan 2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 USC 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong one), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then proceeding to the second part of Step 2A (Prong two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination, provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Looking at the claims, the claims satisfy the first part of the test 1A, namely the claims are directed to one of the four statutory class, apparatus and method. In Step 2A Prong one, we next identify any judicial exceptions in the claims. In Claim 1 (as a representative example), we recognize that the limitations “generating depth information, generating a corrected depth value according to valid depth values of corresponding positions in at least one direction pair corresponding to a position in a hole in depth information, wherein the corrected depth value is used for correcting an invalid depth value of the position, and the corresponding positions in the at least one direction pair are outside the hole, wherein each of the at least one direction pair comprises two opposite directions corresponding to the position in the hole, wherein after the multi-directional information processor corrects invalid depth values of a plurality of positions comprised in the hole,” are abstract ideas, as they are directed to mathematical concept. The Claim 7 additionally recites “wherein the filter first calculates weights of the plurality of selected positions according to at least one item of gray level values, color values, valid depth values, and position relationships of the plurality of selected positions, and then obtains the filtering value according to the weights of the plurality of selected positions and the valid depth values of the plurality of selected positions,” but said limitations are nonetheless abstract idea, as they involve a usage of mathematical concept. Similar rejections are made for other independent and dependent claims. With the identification of abstract ideas, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong two, where with additional elements and taken as a whole, we evaluate whether the identified abstract idea is being integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong two, the claims additionally recite “the multi-directional information processor outputs corrected depth information,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity. The claims also recite “a multi-directional information processor,” “iteration processor,” “backtracking processor,” “a depth information processing device,” but said limitations are merely a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea. The claims do not improve functioning of any device and does not improve any technology In short, the claims do not provide sufficient evidence to show that they are more than a drafting effort to monopolize the abstract idea, particularly given the fact that the claimed invention is generically recited and can be applied in many different fields. As such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B and evaluate whether the additional elements provide “inventive concept” that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, the claims additionally recite “the multi-directional information processor outputs corrected depth information,” but said limitation is merely an insignificant post-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional. The claims also recite “a multi-directional information processor,” “iteration processor,” “backtracking processor,” “a depth information processing device,” but said limitations are merely a general-purpose computer for implementing the abstract idea that are also well-understood, routine and conventional.
In Summary, the claims recite abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and do not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As such, taken as a whole, the claims are ineligible under the 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cho, US-PGPUB 2022/0245771 (hereinafter Cho)
Regarding Claim 1. Cho discloses a depth information processing device (Abstract), comprising:
a depth device generating depth information (Fig. 4B), a multi-directional information processor (Figs. 1-2) generating a corrected depth value according to valid depth values of corresponding positions in at least one direction pair corresponding to a position in a hole in depth information (Paragraph [0068], uncertain region, the low texture region; Paragraph [0085], Figs. 5; [0072], non-detection region), wherein the corrected depth value is used for correcting an invalid depth value of the position (Paragraph [0071], depth correction for the uncertain region, [0072], depth correction for the non-detection region; [0082], correct region; Fig. 7), and the corresponding positions in the at least one direction pair are outside the hole, wherein each of the at least one direction pair comprises two opposite directions corresponding to the position in the hole (Fig 14; the images shown in the Figures 15-20 are x-y, thus more than two different directions, which obviously also includes two opposite directions that can be considered as pairs corresponding to positions outside the hole), wherein after the multi-directional information processor corrects invalid depth values of a plurality of positions comprised in the hole, the multi-directional information processor outputs corrected depth information (Figs. 3-4, 7, 9 showing a plurality of positions, 10-11, 14-20; Paragraphs [0107]-[0126] describe the details of the depth correction process)
Regarding Claim 2. Cho discloses an iteration processor coupled to the multi-directional information processor, wherein the iteration processor is used for controlling and making the multi-directional information processor restart to generate a first corrected depth value corresponding to a first position adjacent to the position at least according to the corrected depth value, the first position is comprised in the hole, and the first corrected depth value is used for correcting an invalid depth value of the first position (Figs. 3-4, 7, 9 showing a plurality of positions within the uncertain regions that are corrected, 10-11, 14-20; Paragraphs [0107]-[0126], depth correction performed by different software programs).
Regarding Claim 3. Cho discloses a backtracking processor coupled to the multi-directional information processor, wherein the backtracking processor is used for generating a first corrected depth value corresponding to a first position adjacent to the position at least according to the corrected depth value, and the first corrected depth value is used for substituting for a first invalid depth value of the first position (Figs. 3-4, 7, 9 showing a plurality of positions within the uncertain regions that are corrected, 10-11, 14-20; Paragraphs [0107]-[0126], depth correction performed by different software programs. Note that the Applicant’s original disclosure identifies the processors as software modules).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coward et al., US Pat No. 5,363,213 (hereinafter Coward)
Regarding Claim 7. Coward discloses a depth device generating depth information (Fig. 4B),
a depth information processing (Abstract), comprising: a filter generating a filtering value corresponding to a filtering window in depth information according to valid depth values of a plurality of selected positions within the filtering window (Col. 3, lines 29-47, filtered, Col. 8, lines 14-24), wherein the filter first calculates weights of the plurality of selected positions according to at least one item of gray level values, color values, and valid depth values of the plurality of selected positions, and then obtains the filtering value according to the weights of the plurality of selected positions and the valid depth values of the plurality of selected positions (Col. 3, lines 29-47, prefiltered and preserving its as gray density information and each pixel in the window is assigned a weighting factor, 51-68, Col. 4, lines 1-6, 35-40, precalculated weight based on position, filter weights, filtering; Col. 6, lines 28-37, each gray output based on weights; Col. 7, lines 19-68; Col. 8, lines 1-14; Figs. 1-8, where the positions in the neighborhood are also the selected positions), wherein the filtering value is used for correcting an invalid depth value corresponding to a position within the filtering window in the depth information, and before the filter filtering, the filtering window does not comprise the filtering value (Col. 3, lines 48-50, desired depth, Col. 4, lines 7-10, correcting from depth c to a depth d suitable for printing)
Regarding Claim 8. Coward discloses an iteration processor coupled to the filter, wherein the iteration processor is used for controlling and making the filter restart to generate a first filtering value corresponding to a first position of the plurality of positions adjacent to the position at least according to the filtering value, and the first filtering value is used for correcting an invalid depth value of the first position (Col. 6, lines 28-37; Col. 3, lines 29-47, 51-68, Col. 4, lines 1-6, 35-40, precalculated weight based on position, filter weights, filtering; Col. 6, lines 28-37, each gray output based on weights; Col. 7, lines 19-68; Col. 8, lines 1-14)
Regarding Claim 9. Coward discloses a backtracking processor coupled to the filter, wherein the backtracking processor is used for generating a first corrected depth value corresponding to a first position adjacent to the position at least according to the filtering value, and the first filtering value is used for substituting for a first invalid depth value of the first position (Col. 3, lines 48-50, desired depth, Col. 4, lines 7-10, correcting from depth c to a depth d suitable for printing)
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 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho, US-PGPUB 2022/0245771 in view of Caspi et al., US Pat No. 5,774,573 (hereinafter Caspi)
Regarding Claim 4. Cho discloses a depth device generating depth information (Fig. 4B), an edge information processor utilizing valid depth values of corresponding positions in at least one direction corresponding to a position in a hole in depth information to generate a corrected depth value according to gray levels and/or color values of the corresponding positions in the at least one direction, wherein the corrected depth value is used for correcting the invalid depth value of the position, and the corresponding positions in the at least one direction are outside the hole, wherein after the edge information processor corrects invalid depth values of a plurality of positions comprised in the hole, the edge information processor outputs corrected depth information (Figs. 3-4, 7, 9 showing a plurality of positions within the uncertain regions that are corrected using correction values, 10-11, 14-20; Paragraphs [0107]-[0126] describe the details of the depth correction process performed by different software programs. Although not explicitly discloses the claimed differences, it’s obvious that the gray values or color values are not uniform in different directions, as shown also in Figs. 10’s with respect to similarity values, resulting in claimed differences. Note that the Applicant’s original disclosure identifies the processors as software modules).
Cho does not explicitly discloses the differences between a gray level and/or color value of the position and the gray level values and/or color values of the corresponding positions in the at least one direction are less than differences between the gray level value and/or color value of the position and gray level values and/or color values of positions of other directions.
Caspi discloses the differences between a gray level and/or color value of the position and the gray level values and/or color values of the corresponding positions in the at least one direction are less than differences between the gray level value and/or color value of the position and gray level values and/or color values of positions of other directions (Figs. 13-14, Col. 14, lines 41-67, largest of the four absolute value differences are derived based on the comparison of the differences in different directions; Fig. 22-23; Col. 2, lines 53-63)
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Caspi in Cho and determine the differences between a gray level and/or color value of the position and the gray level values and/or color values of the corresponding positions in the at least one direction are less than differences between the gray level value and/or color value of the position and gray level values and/or color values of positions of other directions, wherein after the edge information processor corrects invalid depth values of a plurality of positions comprised in the hole, the edge information processor outputs corrected depth information accurately.
Regarding Claim 5. Cho discloses an iteration processor coupled to the edge information processor, wherein the iteration processor is used for controlling and making the edge information processor restart to generate a first corrected depth value corresponding toa first position adjacent to the position at least according to the corrected depth value, the first position is comprised in the hole, and the first corrected depth value is used for correcting an invalid depth value of the first position (Paragraphs [0109]-[0126] using different software programs. Note that the Applicant’s original disclosure identifies the processors as software modules).
Regarding Claim 6. Cho discloses a backtracking processor coupled to the edge information processor, wherein the backtracking processor is used for generating a first corrected depth value corresponding to a first position adjacent to the position at least according to the corrected depth value, and the first corrected depth value is used for substituting for a first invalid depth value of the first position (Figs. 3-4, 7, 9 showing a plurality of positions within the uncertain regions that are corrected, 10-11, 14-20; Paragraphs [0107]-[0126], depth correction performed by different software programs. Note that the Applicant’s original disclosure identifies the processors as software modules).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Coward et al., US Pat No. 5,363,213 in view of Johnson et al., US-PGPUB 2004/0131273 (hereinafter Johnson)
Regarding Claim 10. Coward does not disclose the filter is a median filter, or a mean filter, or a Gaussian filter.
Johnson discloses conventional imaging filters, including averaging filter, Gaussian filter and median filter (Paragraph [0084]; Paragraphs [0057]-[0061]; [0068]; [0089]; [0105])
At the time of the invention filed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching of Johnson in Coward and use various conventional imaging filters, including median, averaging and Gaussian filters to improve the imaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
With respect to 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. To reiterated, the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of correcting depth information. However, as had been stated previously, even for a new abstract idea, it is still an abstract idea, and not eligible (Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d, 1473 (2016), Id., at 1483, “a claim for a new abstract is still an abstract idea). Furthermore, as had been stated before, Applicant’s argument using Cho is therefore not persuasive, particularly since the search for a 101 inventive concept is distinct from demonstrating 102 novelty (see Synopsis, 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (2016), ID., at 1483). In summary, the claimed invention is merely an abstract idea being implemented in a general-purpose computer, and there is no novelty in hardware system or inventive concept. As such, the 101 rejection is maintained.
In regards to the prior art rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite “at least one direction pair, where each of the at least one direction pair comprises two opposite directions corresponding to the position in the hole. Cho, meanwhile, discloses the corresponding positions in the at least two different directions are outside the hole, wherein the at least two different directions are two opposite directions corresponding to the position in the hole, and obviously can be grouped as pair (Fig 14; the images shown in the Figures 15-20 are x-y, thus more than two different directions, which also includes two opposite directions corresponding positions outside the hole).
With respect to Claim 4, Caspi discloses the differences between a gray level and/or color value of the position and the gray level values and/or color values of the corresponding positions in the at least one direction are less than differences between the gray level value and/or color value of the position and gray level values and/or color values of positions of other directions (Figs. 13-14, Col. 14, lines 41-67), where the largest of the four absolute value differences are derived based on the comparison of the differences in different directions.
With respect to Claim 7, Coward discloses filter first calculates weights of the plurality of selected positions according to at least one item of gray level values, color values, and valid depth values of the plurality of selected positions, and then obtains the filtering value according to the weights of the plurality of selected positions and the valid depth values of the plurality of selected positions, where the positions in the neighborhood are also the selected positions (Col. 3, lines 29-47, prefiltered and preserving its as gray density information and each pixel in the window is assigned a weighting factor, 51-68, Col. 4, lines 1-6, 35-40, precalculated weight based on position, filter weights, filtering; Col. 6, lines 28-37, each gray output based on weights; Col. 7, lines 19-68; Col. 8, lines 1-14; Figs. 1-8). For these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HYUN D PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-7922. The examiner can normally be reached 11-4.
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, Arleen Vazquez can be reached at 571-272-2619. 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.
/HYUN D PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857