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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/12/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p.12-16, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are moot because Applicant’s amendments of the independent claims has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, necessitated new grounds of rejection which are presented below. Additionally, Applicant argues that Laganakos does not appear to disclose or suggest anything about determining first and second dimensions for bins based on one or more characteristics including the distances or sharpness characteristics. Additionally, Applicant argues that the combination of references would result in generating a depth map based on the alleged characteristics as opposed to determining first dimensions and second dimensions for bins based on the characteristics. Examiner respectfully disagrees because Laganakos is only directed to teach “the one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame comprise a difference between objects represented in the first pre-image frame” in which the combination of references relies upon Powers to teach “determining first dimensions and second dimensions for the first plurality of bins based on one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame”. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers and Laganakos teaches the determination of first and second dimension of bins based on characteristics of the image frame of Powers in which the teachings of Laganakos further provides the teaching that a characteristic of an image frame may comprise a different between objects in the frame. Thus, the combination of references does not require the generation of a depth map and can be used to teach determining first dimensions and second dimensions for the first plurality of bins based on one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame wherein characteristics of an image comprises a difference between objects.
Applicant’s arguments, see p.9 -12, filed 05/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The method is directed toward image processing and parallel computation, where variable bin sizing based on image content characteristics allows for more efficient processing by distributing workload across multiple processor cores according to data characteristics rather than uniform segmentation. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1-20 under this section of the Rules has been withdrawn. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 limitations are: “a means for processing” relevant to Claims 19-20.
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 § 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius et al. (US 20210398349 A1) in view of Powers et al. (US 10339716 B1), Laganakos et al. (US 20210168348 A1), Wicks et al. (US 20190318709 A1), Karppanen (US 10242119 B1), and Acharya et al. (US 20220207827 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Achrenius teaches "A method, comprising: segmenting a first pre-image frame into a first plurality of bins"; (Achrenius, Para. 14, teaches segmenting an image frame into bins).
However, Achrenius does not explicitly teach "determining first dimensions and second dimensions for the first plurality of bins based on one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame, such that the first plurality of bins comprises: a first bin having first dimensions based on a first characteristic of the first pre-image frame; and a second bin having second dimensions, based on a second characteristic of the first pre-image frame, the second dimensions being different from the first dimensions; wherein: the one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame comprise a difference between objects represented in the first pre-image frame; the first bin comprises N pixels associated with a first region of the first pre-image frame, N being an integer greater than one; the second bin comprises M pixels associated with a second region of the first pre-image frame, the second region being different from the first region; and N is greater than 2 M; and processing, the first bin, by a first core, and processing the second bin, by a second core, to form one or more first pixel subarrays".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Powers teaches "determining first dimensions and second dimensions for the first plurality of bins based on one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame, such that the first plurality of bins comprises: a first bin having first dimensions based on a first characteristic of the first pre-image frame"; (Powers, Col. 6 lines 10-26 and Claim 11, teaches the size of a voxel block varying based on the distance from the current pose of the mobile device with sizes varying from 1x1x1 to 16x16x16 wherein blocks of the second size corresponding to a surface in the physical environment at a distance greater than a threshold from the first pose and voxel blocks of the first size corresponding to a second surface at a distance less than the threshold from the first pose, i.e., determine first and second dimensions for a plurality of bins based on characteristics of the pre-image frame being the surface of the environment and the measured distance such that a first bin has first dimensions based on a first characteristic);
"and a second bin having second dimensions, based on a second characteristic of the first pre-image frame, the second dimensions being different from the first dimensions"; (Powers, Col. 6 lines 10-26 and Claim 11, teaches the size of a voxel block varying based on the distance from the current pose of the mobile device with sizes varying from 1x1x1 to 16x16x16 wherein blocks of the second size corresponding to a surface in the physical environment at a distance greater than a threshold from the first pose and voxel blocks of the first size corresponding to a second surface at a distance less than the threshold from the first pose, i.e., a second bin or block has second dimensions based on a second characteristic being the second surface or distance wherein the second dimensions are different from the first dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius by including a determination of first and second dimensions for a plurality of bins based on characteristics of the image taught by Powers. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves virtual representations with limited resources (Powers, Abstract, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve operations of virtual representations with limited resources).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers does not explicitly teach “wherein: the one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame comprise a difference between objects represented in the first pre-image frame; the first bin comprises N pixels associated with a first region of the first pre-image frame, N being an integer greater than one; the second bin comprises M pixels associated with a second region of the first pre-image frame, the second region being different from the first region; and N is greater than 2 M; and processing, the first bin, by a first core, and processing the second bin, by a second core, to form one or more first pixel subarrays".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Laganakos teaches "wherein: the one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame comprise a difference between objects represented in the first pre-image frame"; (Laganakos, Claim 1, teaches obtaining a frame of image data wherein a distance of one or more further objects in the frame of image data is estimated based on a difference between the sharpness characteristic of the initial object and a sharpness characteristic of each of the further objects, i.e., one or more characteristics of the image frame comprise a difference between objects represented in the image frame being the difference between sharpness characteristics and a difference in distance between the objects).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius and Powers by including the characteristic comprising a difference between objects in the frame taught by Laganakos. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves efficiency and reduces cost (Laganakos, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the efficiency and reducing the cost of gathering the information).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers and Laganakos does not explicitly teach “the first bin comprises N pixels associated with a first region of the first pre-image frame, N being an integer greater than one; the second bin comprises M pixels associated with a second region of the first pre-image frame, the second region being different from the first region; and N is greater than 2 M; and processing, the first bin, by a first core, and processing the second bin, by a second core, to form one or more first pixel subarrays".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Wicks teaches "the first bin comprises N pixels associated with a first region of the first pre-image frame, N being an integer greater than one"; (Wicks, FIG. 2 [207] and Abstract and Para. 27, teaches rendering regions of frames wherein graphics content is generated by assigning a first region of the graphics content to a first tile and determining a first set of samples for each pixel of multiple pixels associated with the first region, i.e., a first bin or tile comprises a number N of pixels associated with a first region of the frame wherein N is more than one);
"the second bin comprises M pixels associated with a second region of the first pre-image frame, the second region being different from the first region"; (Wicks, FIG. 2 [207] and Abstract and Para. 27, teaches rendering regions of frames wherein graphics content is generated by assigning a second region of the graphics content to a second tile and determining a second set of samples for each pixel of multiple pixels associated with the second region, i.e., a second bin or tile comprises a number M of pixels associated with a second region of the frame wherein the second region is different from the first region).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius, Powers, and Laganakos by including the first bin comprising a number of pixels associated with a first region of the image wherein N is greater than one and wherein a second bin comprises a number of pixels associated with a different second region taught by Wicks. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the quality of the region (Wicks, Para. 34, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve the quality of the region or to improve processing efficiency).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, and Wicks does not explicitly teach “and N is greater than 2 M; and processing, the first bin, by a first core, and processing the second bin, by a second core, to form one or more first pixel subarrays".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Karppanen teaches "and N is greater than 2 M"; (Karppanen, FIG. 2 and Col. 3 lines 26-67, teaches splitting a large tile area into small tile areas of different shapes and sizes of 10x20 pixels, 20x20, pixels, and 50x200 pixels, i.e., a small tile or bin comprises more than two times the number of pixels as another small tile or bin).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius, Powers, Laganakos, and Wicks by including the first bin having greater than twice the number of pixels as a second bin taught by Karppanen. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it creates efficient processing (Karppanen, Col. 3 lines 26-67, teaches the motivation of combination to be to create efficient processing of a web page).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, and Karppanen does not explicitly teach "and processing, the first bin, by a first core, and processing the second bin, by a second core, to form one or more first pixel subarrays".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Acharya teaches "and processing, the first bin, by a first core, and processing the second bin, by a second core, to form one or more first pixel subarrays"; (Acharya, FIGs. 4-5 and Paras. 10, 15, and 23-24, teaches an array of one or more GPU chiplets which are packaged together as a monolithic unit wherein each coarse bin is assigned to one of the GPU chiplets such as GPU chiplet 106-1 is always assigned to render coarse bins 410 and 412 and GPU chiplet 106-2 is always assigned to render coarse bins 414 and 416 and wherein an image frame displays a rendered primitive which is divided into several blocks with each block associated with a respective bin in which bins for processing are identified, primitives intercepting the identified bin are processed, and pixels included in the primitive that are enclosed by the identified bin are sent for detailed rasterization, i.e., first and second bins are processed by first and second cores respectively being the one chiplet assigned to render a given bin and the second chiplet is assigned to render another given bin in order to form pixel subarrays being the rasterization resulting from the processed bins and primitives).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius, Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, and Karppanen by including the processing of the bins to form associated regions as a pixel subarray based on the dimensions of the bins. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves the user experience and allows the GPU to parallel process bins (Acharya, Para. 12, teaches the motivation of combination to be to increase the speed and efficiency of rendering images to enhance the user experience by introducing parallelization into bin processing).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, and Acharya references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, and Acharya references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claim 19 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, and Acharya references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, and Acharya references disclose a processor, i.e., a means for processing, and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du et al. (US 20120140992 A1), and Acharya et al. (US 20220044350 A1, hereinafter Acharya’350).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, and Acharya does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 1, further comprising: segmenting a second pre-image frame into a second plurality of bins; and processing each of the second plurality of bins to form one or more second pixel subarrays; wherein the segmenting of the second pre-image frame is different from the segmenting of the first pre-image frame”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Du teaches "The method of claim 1, further comprising: segmenting a second pre-image frame into a second plurality of bins"; (Du, Claims 5 and 12, teach segmenting a second image into a second plurality of bins).
"
"wherein the segmenting of the second pre-image frame is different from the segmenting of the first pre-image frame"; (Du, Claims 5 and 12, teach that the segmentation of the second image is angularly offset from the first image segmentation to include different features).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, and Acharya by including the second plurality of bins with differing segmentation taught by Du. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second plurality of bins of Du with the processing of bins to form a respective pixel subarray of Acharya. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it provides a method more tolerant of segmentation error (Du, Paras. 6-7, teach the motivation of combination to be to provide a more robust identification method that is tolerant of segmentation error).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Du does not explicitly teach "and processing each of the second plurality of bins to form one or more second pixel subarrays".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Acharya’350 teaches "and processing each of the second plurality of bins to form one or more second pixel subarrays"; (Acharya’350, Para. 37, teaches coarse level binning divides the screen into regions and only operates on that part of the screen wherein each region has fewer primitives than the screen as a whole and wherein the pipeline first coarse bins a screen into large bins then bins them into smaller pixel bins, i.e., form a second pixel subarray being the divided regions of the screen space).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Du by including the processing of the second plurality of bins to form second pixel subarrays taught by Acharya’350. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the second plurality of bins of Du with the processing of bins to form a respective pixel subarray of Acharya’350. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves user experience by adapting the GPU to a given condition (Acharya, Para. 7, teaches the motivation of combination to be to improve user experience by adapting the GPU to a given condition).
Claim 11 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claims 3 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 teaches " The method of claim 1, wherein: the first dimensions comprise: a horizontal dimension greater than a horizontal dimension of the second dimensions, and a vertical dimension greater than a vertical dimension of the second dimensions"; (Acharya’350, Para.12, teaches a first coarse bin being able to be divided into a 64x64 array of second fine bins wherein the second bin would have to have a significantly lesser horizontal and vertical dimensions).
"the first bin has a center at a first distance from a center of the first pre-image frame"; (Powers, Col. 4 lines 40-41 and Claim 11, teaches a block with a second size having a distance greater than a threshold from a first pose wherein the first pose represents the projective center in the frame, i.e., a first bin with a distance from a center of the first image frame being greater than a threshold);
"the second bin has a center at a second distance, less than the first distance, from the center of the first pre-image frame"; (Powers, Col. 4 lines 40-41, Col. 7 lines 54-64, and Claim 11, teaches a block with a first size having a distance less than a threshold from a first pose wherein the first pose represents the projective center in the frame and wherein the first size block is smaller than the second sized block, i.e., a second bin with a distance from a center of the first image frame being less than a threshold indicating a distance less than the first distance that is greater than a threshold);
"and the one or more characteristics of the first pre-image frame comprise the distance from the center of the first pre-image frame"; (Powers, Col. 4 lines 40-41 and Col. 6 lines 10-26 and Claim 11, teaches the size of a voxel block varying based on the distance from the current pose of the mobile device with sizes varying from 1x1x1 to 16x16x16 wherein the pose represents the projective center of the depth points in the frame wherein blocks of the second size corresponding to a surface in the physical environment at a distance greater than a threshold from the first pose and voxel blocks of the first size corresponding to a second surface at a distance less than the threshold from the first pose, i.e., determine first and second dimensions for a plurality of bins based on characteristics of the pre-image frame being the surface of the environment and the measured distance being distance from the center of the frame).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 3. Thus, the method recited in Claim 3 is met by Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350.
Claim 12 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Wu; Yue et al. (US 20230351638 A1, hereinafter Wu; Yue).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 3, wherein each bin of the first plurality of bins has a center at a distance, from the center of the first pre-image frame, greater than a threshold distance, and has dimensions comprising: a horizontal dimension greater than a horizontal dimension of the second dimensions, and a vertical dimension greater than a vertical dimension of the second dimensions".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Wu; Yue teaches "The method of claim 3, wherein each bin of the first plurality of bins has a center at a distance, from the center of the first pre-image frame, greater than a threshold distance, and has dimensions comprising: a horizontal dimension greater than a horizontal dimension of the second dimensions, and a vertical dimension greater than a vertical dimension of the second dimensions"; (Wu; Yue, Para. 57 and Claim 12, teach a plurality of blocks in which the disparity distance between the block to the center of the image is measured and compared to a threshold distance as well as a threshold to disparity distance ratio wherein the first block is larger than a second block, i.e., a first horizontal and vertical dimension is greater than a second horizontal and vertical dimension).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 by including the threshold center distance of a plurality of bins that are greater in size than the second bins taught by Wu; Yue. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it provides reliable and precise distances for recognizing given pixels (Wu; Yue, Para. 7, teaches the motivation of combination to be to provide reliable and precise information regarding disparity distance on the road or path to recognize hazard pixels).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 13 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350 and Wu; Yue references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350 and Wu; Yue references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Min et al. (US 20210192699 A1, hereinafter Min).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 do not explicitly teach "The method of claim 3, wherein the first plurality of bins further comprises a third bin having third dimensions different from the first dimensions and different from the second dimensions".
In an analogous field of art, Min teaches "The method of claim 3, wherein the first plurality of bins further comprises a third bin having third dimensions different from the first dimensions and different from the second dimensions"; (Min, Para. 100, teaches a third block, i.e., a third bin, which has a third size that comprises different dimensions than the first and second blocks).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 by including the third bin with differing dimensions taught by Min. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it allows for different modifications by varying sizes of blocks (Min, Para. 103, teaches the motivation of combination to be to modify representative brightness values through the non-uniformity of area by the varying sized blocks).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Min references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Min references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, Min, Nellutla et al. (US 20190220411 A1, hereinafter Nellutla), and Han et al. (US 20220360722 A1, hereinafter Han).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Min does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 5, wherein: the third dimensions comprise: a horizontal dimension greater than a horizontal dimension of the first dimensions, and a vertical dimension greater than a vertical dimension of the first dimensions; and the third bin has a center at a third distance, greater than the first distance, from the center of the first pre-image frame".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Nellutla teaches "The method of claim 5, wherein: the third dimensions comprise: a horizontal dimension greater than a horizontal dimension of the first dimensions, and a vertical dimension greater than a vertical dimension of the first dimensions"; (Nellutla, Para. 93, teaches a third bin having a second horizontal and second vertical dimension wherein the second horizontal and vertical dimensions are greater than the first horizontal and vertical dimensions).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Min by including the differing sized dimensions of a third bin taught by Nellutla. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the differing sized dimensions of a third bin of Nellutla with the third center image distance that is greater than a first distance of Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it improves efficiency and memory utilization (Nellutla, Para. 4, teaches the motivation of combination to be to provide a more efficient method to partition frames and improve the utilization of local memory of the GPU).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, Min, and Nellutla does not explicitly teach "and the third bin has a center at a third distance, greater than the first distance, from the center of the first pre-image frame".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Han teaches "and the third bin has a center at a third distance, greater than the first distance, from the center of the first pre-image frame"; (Han, Paras. 101-103, teach a third block, i.e., third bin, which has a distance to the center of the first image wherein the first block may be arranged so the distance to the image is the shortest, i.e., third bin distance is greater than first bin distance).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, Min, and Nellutla by including the third bin having a distance greater than a first distance to the center of the image frame taught by Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it lowers computational load (Han, Para. 86, teaches the motivation of combination to be to calculate the center less often resulting in lower computational load).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, Min, Nellutla, and Han references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, Min, Nellutla, and Han references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Agarwal et al. (US 20230326224 A1, hereinafter Agarwal).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 does not explicitly teach "The method of claim 3, wherein the first distance is a weighted Chebyshev distance".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Agarwal teaches "The method of claim 3, wherein the first distance is a weighted Chebyshev distance"; (Agarwal, Para. 64, teaches measuring a distance between centroids by using the Chebyshev distance which is weighted).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, and Acharya’350 by including the Chebyshev distance that has weight taught by Agarwal. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it enables the measurement of distance between any node (Agarwal, Para. 64, teaches the motivation of combination to be to allow for every node to connect to any other node by an edge and to be able to measure their distances).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 16 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Agarwal references, presented in rejection of Claim 7, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Acharya’350, and Agarwal references disclose a processor and a memory that stores instructions to execute the aforementioned method (for example, see Achrenius, Paragraph 21).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, Acharya’350, Yamashita et al. (US 20130266213 A1, hereinafter Yamashita), and Wu (US 20140119653 A1, hereinafter Wu).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 further teaches "The system of claim 19, wherein the method further comprises segmenting a second pre-image frame into a second plurality of bins"; (Du, Claims 5 and 12, teach segmenting a second image into a second plurality of bins);
"and processing each of the second plurality of bins to form one or more second pixel subarrays"; (Acharya’350, Para. 37, teaches coarse level binning divides the screen into regions and only operates on that part of the screen wherein each region has fewer primitives than the screen as a whole and wherein the pipeline first coarse bins a screen into large bins then bins them into smaller pixel bins, i.e., form a second pixel subarray being the divided regions of the screen space).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 references presented in the rejection of Claim 2, applies to claim 20.
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 does not explicitly teach "wherein: the first bin comprises a pixel having a first pair of coordinates in the first pre- image frame; and a third bin, of the second plurality of bins, has second dimensions different from the first dimensions and comprises a pixel having coordinates equal to the first pair of coordinates in the second pre-image frame”.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Yamashita teaches "wherein: the first bin comprises a pixel having a first pair of coordinates in the first pre- image frame"; (Yamashita, Para. 103, teaches a first block, i.e., the first bin, including a target pixel which has a pair of coordinates in the first image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, and Acharya’350 by including the pixel coordinates in the first bin taught by Yamashita. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it allows for the comparison between pixel values that correspond between images (Yamashita, Para. 103, teaches the motivation of combination to be to evaluate and compare the pixels and their values that correspond between images).
However, the combination of references of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, Acharya’350 and Yamashita does not explicitly teach "and a third bin, of the second plurality of bins, has second dimensions different from the first dimensions and comprises a pixel having coordinates equal to the first pair of coordinates in the second pre-image frame".
In an analogous field of endeavor, Wu teaches "and a third bin, of the second plurality of bins, has second dimensions different from the first dimensions and comprises a pixel having coordinates equal to the first pair of coordinates in the second pre-image frame"; (Wu, Para. 9, teaches a third block, i.e., a third bin, wherein a pixel coordinate value for the third block is equal to the pixel coordinate value in the second image).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Achrenius in view of Powers, Laganakos, Wicks, Karppanen, Acharya, Du, Acharya’350, and Yamashita wherein the bins have different dimensions by including the third bin that has pixel coordinates which are equal to the pixel coordinates in the second image taught by Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the references since it decreases the computational cost (Wu, Paras. 6-7, teach the motivation of combination to be to decrease computational cost of monitoring systems).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 and 17-18 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. The following is the examiner’s stated reason for indication of allowable subject matter: none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of limitations recited in claims 8-9. Regarding claim 8, the combination of references does not explicitly define the relationship between bins as a given amount of vertices multiplied by a factor specifically below 1.5. Regarding claim 9, the combination of references does not explicitly define a bin as comprising 20 percent of the pixels of a first image as well as containing no vertices. Claims 17-18 are system claims with steps corresponding to the method claims 8-9 respectively, and therefore, Claims 17-18 contain the aforementioned allowable subject matter.
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 extension fee 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 ANDREW STEVEN BUDISALICH whose telephone number is (703)756-5568. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am-5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571) 272-3382. 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.
/ANDREW S BUDISALICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights