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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed January 5, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 5-10 and 13-17 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome some of the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 6, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, “wherein the disparity map comprises a plurality of valid disparity values and a plurality of invalid disparity values” is repeated twice and a duplicate should be deleted
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-10 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruls (US 2017/0085859) in view of Song et al. (US 2013/0120536) and in further view of Jin et al. (US 2016/0048837).
Regarding claim 1, Bruls discloses a 3D format image detection method, adapted for an electronic apparatus (Fig. 6, paragraph 0071: “a processor for automatic detection of a 3D format”), wherein the 3D format image detection method comprises: obtaining a first image and a second image by dividing an input image according to a 3D image format (paragraph 0071: “unit SPH 601 for splitting the 2D frame in the input signal into two (or more) 3D subframes according to a first 3D format”); performing a 3D matching processing on the first image and the second image to generate a disparity map of the first image and the second image (paragraphs 0082-0083: “DE/MC 604 may be arranged for…calculating a disparity estimation between the 3D subframes and compensating at least one of the 3D subframes based on the disparity estimation before further comparing”); calculating a matching number (paragraphs 0072, 0075: “the frame L is compared to frame L' by the correspondence calculation unit MAD [605]” where “The mean absolute difference of each (or a subset of) corresponding pixels in the 2 parts is calculated” and “The output of the correspondence calculation is converted in scoring unit CMP 607 to a format score 610”); and determining whether the input image is a 3D format image conforming to the 3D image format according to the matching number (paragraph 0073: “Format scores for different 3D formats are to be assessed to determine the actual 3D format used, if any”), wherein the step of determining whether the input image is the 3D format image conforming to the 3D image format according to the matching number comprises: determining whether the matching number meets a matching condition (paragraph 0073: “The format scores may be compared to each other and/or to respective thresholds”), wherein the step of determining whether the matching number meets the matching condition comprises: calculating a matching ratio (paragraph 0072: “The output of the correspondence calculation is converted in scoring unit CMP 607 to a format score 610 for the SBS 3D format, e.g. by normalizing”); and determining whether the matching ratio is greater than a threshold (paragraph 0013: “the format scores are assessed, e.g. compared to a predetermined threshold”), wherein if the matching ratio is greater than the threshold, the matching number meets the matching condition (paragraph 0013: “Based on the assessment one of the 3D formats may have a reliably high score, and then the 3D status signal is correspondingly set to indicate the format of the video signal”); and if the matching ratio is not greater than the threshold, the matching number does not meet the matching condition (paragraph 0013: “If none of the 3D formats has a sufficiently high score, a 2D video signal is assumed”). However, Bruls fails to explicitly disclose the disparity map comprises a plurality of valid disparity values and a plurality of invalid disparity values, and if a certain first pixel of the plurality of first pixels in the first image is successfully matched with a certain second pixel of the plurality of second pixels in the second image, a corresponding valid disparity value of the plurality of valid disparity values is obtained in the 3D matching processing; calculating a matching number by counting a number of valid disparity values in the disparity map, wherein the matching number is the number of the valid disparity values; and calculating a matching ratio of the number of valid disparity values to a number of pixels of the first image.
In the related art of disparity estimation, Song discloses the disparity map (Song paragraph 0008: “A depth image (e.g. a disparity map) may be produced”) comprises a plurality of valid disparity values (Song paragraph 0025: “A number of valid disparity values may be determined from said disparity map”) and a plurality of invalid disparity values (Song paragraph 0025: “there will be a low number of invalid disparity values”), and if a certain first pixel of the plurality of first pixels in the first image is successfully matched with a certain second pixel of the plurality of second pixels in the second image, a corresponding valid disparity value of the plurality of valid disparity values is obtained in the 3D matching processing (Song paragraph 0009: “A valid disparity value may be defined in this case as a disparity value which is determined for two mutually associated pixels of the partial images which may be identified unequivocally or at least with a defined probability as being mutually corresponding”); and calculating a matching number by counting a number of valid disparity values in the disparity map, wherein the matching number is the number of the valid disparity values (Song paragraphs 0025-0026: “The number of valid disparity values may be compared with the threshold value and it is decided whether there is a sufficient number of valid disparity values” where the number of valid disparity values represents the correspondence between the two partial images). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bruls to incorporate the teachings of Song to reduce the data quantity to be processed and enable quicker processing of the data (Song paragraph 0010). However, Bruls, modified by Song, still fails to explicitly disclose calculating a matching ratio of the number of valid disparity values to a number of pixels of the first image.
In the related art of image matching, Jin discloses calculating a matching ratio of the matching number to a number of pixels of the first image (Jin paragraph 0058: “When the number or proportion of successfully matched pixel points reaches a predetermined threshold (e.g., the ratio of the number of successfully matched pixel points in the total number of all pixel points of the UnionPay logo image exceeds 70%)”). Using a ratio measure is a known technique to condense information into a manageable metric for analysis and comparison across various contexts. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying calculation of a ratio to an image matching method to simplify data interpretation and enable comparison across different entities. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bruls to incorporate the teachings of Jin to yield the predictable result of determining whether the matching number meets the matching condition in various contexts, e.g., when images have different sizes.
Regarding claim 2, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the 3D format image detection method claimed in claim 1, wherein the step of determining whether the input image is the 3D format image conforming to the 3D image format according to the matching number comprises: determining that the input image is the 3D format image conforming to the 3D image format in response to the matching number meeting the matching condition (Bruls paragraph 0074: “if the score is sufficiently reliable, taking a decision that the first 3D format is present at the input”); and determining that the input image is not the 3D format image conforming to the 3D image format in response to the matching number not meeting the matching condition (Bruls paragraph 0073: “If none of the 3D formats has a sufficient confidence level, a 2D signal (mono video) is assumed”).
Regarding claim 7, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the 3D format image detection method claimed in claim 1, wherein a size of the first image is the same as a size of the second image (Bruls Figs. 3-4, paragraphs 0061-0062: the left and right frames in Fig. 3 are the same size, and the top and bottom halves in Fig. 4 are the same size).
Regarding claim 8, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the 3D format image detection method claimed in claim 1, wherein the 3D image format comprises a side-by-side format (Bruls paragraph 0065: “a 3D format, such as SBS”), a top and bottom format (Bruls paragraph 0065: “TB”), a checkerboard format (Bruls paragraph 0068: “Checkerboard (CB)”), or an interlacing format (Bruls paragraphs 0066-0067: “Line-Interleaved (LI)” and “Column-Interleaved (CI)”).
Regarding claim 9, it is the corresponding apparatus (comprising a storage device and a processer) configured to execute the method claimed in claim 1. Therefore, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the limitations of claim 9 as it does the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it is the corresponding apparatus configured to execute the method claimed in claim 2. Therefore, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the limitations of claim 10 as it does the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 15, it is the corresponding apparatus configured to execute the method claimed in claim 7. Therefore, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the limitations of claim 15 as it does the limitations of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, it is the corresponding apparatus configured to execute the method claimed in claim 8. Therefore, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the limitations of claim 16 as it does the limitations of claim 8.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruls, Song and Jin in view of Akao (US 2014/0218357).
Regarding claim 5, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the 3D format image detection method claimed in claim 1. However, Bruls fails to disclose obtaining a first image block by taking a first target pixel point on the first image as a center; calculating a plurality of similarities between the first image block and a plurality of second image blocks on the second image, wherein a position of the first image block on a Y axis is the same as a position of the second image block on the Y axis; and obtaining the valid disparity value or the invalid disparity value corresponding to the first target pixel point on the disparity map according to the similarities corresponding to the respective second image block. In the related art of parallax estimation, Akao discloses obtaining a first image block by taking a first target pixel point on the first image as a center (Akao Fig. 2, paragraph 0140: “a pixel of interest LP = (5, 3) of the pixel region (block) 121 of the L image”); calculating a plurality of similarities between the first image block and a plurality of second image blocks on the second image (Akao paragraphs 0136-0143: a known step in the “block matching-based parallax information acquisition process”, as evidenced by supporting patent application Matono et al. (US 2015/0310621) – see Conclusion; Akao Fig. 2: the dotted lines in the R image indicate a plurality of second image blocks are compared to the first image block for matching), wherein a position of the first image block on a Y axis is the same as a position of the second image block on the Y axis (Akao Fig. 2: the blocks in both the L and R images have Y-axis position = 3); and obtaining the valid disparity value or the invalid disparity value (this limitation is disclosed in an alternative clause and thus, read only on the first limitation) corresponding to the first target pixel point on the disparity map (Akao paragraphs 0140-0143: “parallax d(5, 3) between the L and R images of the pixel position (x, y)=(5, 3) of the L image is computed”) according to the similarities corresponding to the respective second image block (Akao paragraph 0139: “a block similar to the selected block is detected in the R image”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bruls to incorporate the teachings of Akao to generate an optimum multi-perspective image based on reliability of the estimated parallax (Akao paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 6, Bruls, modified by Song, Jin and Akao, discloses the 3D format image detection method claimed in claim 5, wherein the step of obtaining the valid disparity value or the invalid disparity value corresponding to the first target pixel point on the disparity map according to the similarities corresponding to the respective second image block comprises: obtaining the valid disparity value corresponding to the first target pixel point on the disparity map based on a position of a second target pixel point on an X axis in a center of a second target image block and a position of the first target pixel point on the X axis (Akao Fig. 2, paragraphs 0140-0143: “Parallax d(5, 3)=(7, 3)-(5, 3)=(2, 0)”) if the second target image block matching a first target image block in the second image block is obtained according to the similarity (Akao paragraph 0139: “a block similar to the selected block is detected in the R image”); and obtaining the invalid disparity value corresponding to the first target pixel point on the disparity map if the second target image block matching the first target image block in the second image block is not obtained according to the similarity (Song paragraph 0025: “for pixels in this area it is not possible to find the respective pixel in the other partial image. As a result, there will be a low number of invalid disparity values”).
Regarding claim 13, it is the corresponding apparatus configured to execute the method claimed in claim 5. Therefore, Bruls, modified by Song, Jin and Akao, discloses the limitations of claim 13 as it does the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 14, it is the corresponding apparatus configured to execute the method claimed in claim 6. Therefore, Bruls, modified by Song, Jin and Akao, discloses the limitations of claim 14 as it does the limitations of claim 6.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruls, Song and Jin in view of Xu et al. (WO2022179359).
Regarding claim 17, Bruls, modified by Song and Jin, discloses the 3D format image detection method claimed in claim 1. However, Bruls fails to explicitly disclose before calculating the matching number, performing a de-noise processing on the disparity map, to replace part of the valid disparity values with the invalid disparity values. In the related art of stereo matching, Xu discloses before calculating the matching number, performing a de-noise processing on the disparity map, to replace part of the valid disparity values with the invalid disparity values (Xu paragraph 0081: operations are performed on the disparity map to determine invalid point areas, e.g., “the consistency check fails, and the disparity value of the corresponding position is changed to an invalid value” and “some points that are considered unreliable by parallax are marked as invalid pixels”; the resulting depth map can be used in further calculations such as measurement). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Bruls to incorporate the teachings of Xu to optimize the disparity map and address problems such as inaccurate disparity of occluded points, noise points, and mismatched points in the disparity map (Xu paragraph 0081).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that “Bruls does not directly utilize, after generating a disparity map, the number or proportion of valid disparity values contained in the disparity map to determine a 3D image format”, 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). Examiner acknowledges that Bruls fails to teach the matching number is the number of valid disparity values. Examiner relies on the combination of Bruls with Song to teach the missing limitations (as detailed in the above rejection of claim 1). In view of the combination of Bruls and Song, one of ordinary skill in the art could reach the conclusion that instead of using the format score as calculated in Bruls to determine the 3D image format, the number of valid disparity values can be used to determine the 3D image format.
Regarding the argument that “the sparse disparity map disclosed in Song (which comprises both valid disparity values and invalid disparity values) is contrary to the requirements imposed by Bruls on disparity estimation results…Accordingly, the proposed combination of the valid disparity statistics of Song with the MAD-based detection of Bruls, as set forth in the Office Action, does not appear to constitute a reasonable modification of the cited references”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Bruls teaches calculating a correspondence between 3D subframes that is converted to a format score. Additionally, Bruls teaches other correspondences between the 3D subframes may be estimated besides a MAD calculation (Bruls paragraph 0072). Song teaches using the number of valid disparity values to represent correspondence between two partial images (Song paragraphs 0025-0026). Thus, the combined teachings of Bruls and Song would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that instead of using the format score as calculated in Bruls to represent the correspondence between two subframes, the number of valid disparity values can be used to indicate the level of matching.
Regarding the argument that “In Bruls, the disclosed normalization is limited to scaling the error metric, and does not support replacing the metric itself with a pixel-count-based ratio. That is, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to substitute the normalization of Bruls with the pixel-ratio-based calculation disclosed in Jin, since doing so would depart from the manner in which normalization is defined and applied in Bruls”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Bruls teaches other correspondences between the 3D subframes may be estimated, such as calculating a correlation between the 3D subframes (Bruls paragraph 0072). Therefore, the normalization in Bruls is not confined to scaling error-based metrics as argued. Furthermore, the combined teachings of Bruls, Song and Jin would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art that instead of using the format score as calculated in Bruls to represent the correspondence between two subframes, the ratio of valid disparity values can be used to indicate the level of matching.
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 CHRISTINE ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-5986. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am - 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, Andrew Bee can be reached on (571)270-5183. 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.
/C.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/ANDREW W BEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights