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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-6, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13 are contain condition limitations, for example, claim 1 recites “.. if the first condition is met, acquiring…” The Examiner notes that the claimed limitation is not a positive recitation, but merely a contingent limitation. The claims should be amended such that the limitations are positively recited, for example in claim 1, “.. if the first condition is met, acquiring..” should be amended to “when the first condition is met, acquiring…”.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figures 1-4 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
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 limitation(s) is/are: “first determination module” and “first parameter acquisition module” in claim 8; “second determination module” and “second parameter acquisition module” as in claim 12; and “first parameter calculation parameter module” and “.. second parameter calculation module…” as in claim 13.
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.
Generic Placeholder coupled with functional language
Corresponding structural support from the specification
“… first determination module…”
[0094], “…the above-mentioned modules can also be considered as functional modules realized by hardware and are used to realize the functions involved when the image stitching apparatus 70 executes the image stitching methods. For example, the control logics of various processes involved in the image stitching method are burned into field programmable gate array (FPGA) chips or complex programmable logic devices (CPLDs) in advance, and then these chips or devices execute the functions of the above-mentioned modules. The particular realization mode depends on the engineering practice.”
“… first parameter acquisition module…”
[0094]
“…second determination module…”
[0094]
“… a second parameter acquisition module …”
“… a first parameter calculation module.. “
[0094]
[0094]
“… a second parameter calculation module…”
[0094]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 7-9, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0019594 A1).
As per claim 1, Wu teaches an image stitching method comprising: acquiring a current frame of first picture photographed by a first camera and a current frame of a second picture photographed by a second camera (fig. 2 el. 200 and 250; and [0017];, “… a pair of neighboring cameras can capture a series of video frames (box 210 represents the video capture area A and box 215 represents the video capture area of camera B) that overlap in area 220”), wherein an overlap exists between photographed regions in the first picture and the second picture (figs. 2 and fig. 4 and [0016-0018]); determining whether a first condition is met, the first condition comprising the relative position relationship between the first camera and the second camera remaining unchanged when a current frame and a previous frame of the pictures are photographed (fig. 3 el. 445 and [0049], “.. a determination is made as to whether a significant change in the depth of field of the camera array has occurred. Whether a change is significant may depend on the current location relative to the scene of the camera array…”) if the first condition is met, acquiring a first projection transformation parameter used when a projection transformation is performed for the previous frame of a third picture photographed by the first camera and a second projection transformation parameter used when a projection transformation is performed for the previous frame of a fourth picture photographed by the second camera (fig. 4 el. 410-445; and [0044-0048]; performing homographies on the captured images based on mapping. The Examiner notes that the limitation is a condition limitation and given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation only requires the steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.),); and blending the first picture and the second picture using the first projection transformation parameter to perform a projection transform for the first picture and the second projection transformation parameter to perform a projection transformation for the second picture (fig. 4 and [0036-0038]).
As per claim 2, Wu teaches wherein determining whether a first condition is met comprises, determining whether positions of the first camera and the second camera both remain unchanged when the current frame and the previous frame of pictures are photographed (fig. 4 el. 405-445).
As per claim 8 Wu teaches an image stitching apparatus comprising: an image acquisition module ([0026], “field-programmable gate array (FPGA)) configured to acquire a current frame of a first picture photographed by a first camera and the current frame of second picture photographed by a second camera (fig.2; fig. 3 el. 302, 305, 338, fig.4 and abstract, [0012]); a first determination module ([0026]) configured to determine whether a first condition is met, the first condition referring to: a relative position relationship between the first camera and the second camera remaining unchanged when the current frame and the previous frame are photographed (fig. 4 el. 415-445; and [0045-0046], [0048-0049]); a first parameter acquisition module ([0026]) configured to acquire a first projection transformation parameter used when a projection transformation is performed for the previous frame of a third picture photographed by the first camera and second projection transformation parameter used when a projection transformation is performed for the previous frame of a fourth picture photographed by the second camera if the first condition is met (fig. 4 and [0045-0048]; performing homographies on the captured images based on mapping. The Examiner notes that the limitation is a condition limitation and given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In this case, the broadest reasonable interpretation only requires the steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. ); and an image processing module ([0026]] configured to blend the first picture and the second picture (fig. 4 el. 440), wherein the first projection transformation parameter is used to perform a projection transformation for the first picture and the second projection transformation parameter is used to perform a projection transformation to the second picture (fig. 4 el. 420-445; and [0045-0048]; “..the captured video frames are stitched together based on the calculated video mode homographies calculated at 425 and/or 435”).
As per claim 9, Wu teaches wherein the first determination module ([0026]) is configured to determine that the relative position relationship between the first camera and the second camera remains unchanged if the position of the first camera and the second camera both remain unchanged when the current frame and the previous frame of pictures are photographed (fig. 4 and [0049], “.. a determination is made as to whether a significant change in the depth of field of the camera array has occurred. Whether a change is significant may depend on the current location relative to the scene of the camera array…”).
As per claim 15, which is the corresponding image stitching apparatus with the limitations of the apparatus as recited in claim 8, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 8 also applies here.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0019594 A1) and in view of Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
As per claim 7, Wu teaches the method is executed by an edge processing device connected with both the first camera and the second camera (fig. 3 and [0031-0034]), however, Wu does not explicitly disclose the first camera and the second camera comprise cameras in a CCTV system, or cameras in a roadside parking system.
However, AAPA teaches wherein the first camera and the second camera comprise cameras in a CCTV system, or cameras in a roadside parking system (see fig. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of AAPA with Wu for the predictable results of imaging a desired location.
As per claim 14, Wu teaches wherein: the method is executed by an edge processing device connected with both the first camera and the second camera (fig. 3 and fig. 3 and [0031-0034]). Wu does not explicitly disclose the first camera and the second camera comprise cameras in a CCTV system or cameras in a roadside parking system.
However, AAPA discloses the first camera and the second camera comprise cameras in a CCTV system or cameras in a roadside parking system (figs. 1-2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of AAPA with Wu for the predictable results of imaging a desired location.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 10-13 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486