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 .
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, 14, 17 and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the plurality of objection” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the depth order" in lines 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the plurality of objection” in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the plurality of objection” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the plurality of objection” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 13-14 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 1, 14, 17 and 18 the claims recite obtaining a plurality of image frames from an imaging system, wherein the imaging system comprises a plurality of cameras imaging a scene, wherein there are a plurality of objects present in the scene, wherein the plurality of objection comprise a first object and a second object;
Obtaining a plurality of depth maps from the imaging system, wherein at least one depth map of the plurality of depth maps corresponds to image frame;
Obtaining qualitative depth information, wherein the qualitative depth information relates to the depth of the first object relative to the second object, wherein the qualitative depth information is different from the information conveyed by the plurality of depth maps;
Determining a depth order for each of the plurality of objects based on the qualitative depth information, wherein the depth order determines the depth of at least one of the plurality of objects relative to any other object of the plurality of objects with a different depth order; and
Storing the plurality of image frames, the corresponding plurality of depth maps and the depth order for the plurality of objects. The limitations obtaining a plurality of image frame from an imaging system of plurality cameras and storing plurality of image frames, the corresponding plurality of depth maps and depth order are mere extra solution activities. The limitations obtaining plurality of depth maps from imaging system correspond to image frame, is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation a mathematical manipulation of image data and data gathering. Similarly, the limitation obtaining qualitative depth information relating to first object relative to the second object and different from information conveyed by depth maps, is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation a mathematical manipulation and data gathering. The limitation determining a depth order for each of the plurality of objects based on the qualitative depth information, is process under the broadest interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the
recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of
abstract ideas. Limitation component of a mathematical concepts and mental process both fall within grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite a particular machine that meaningfully limits the abstract processing. References to a “computing device,” “processor,” “memory,” and “non-transitory processor-readable medium” are generic computer components. The claims do not recite a transformation of an article to a different state or thing beyond manipulation of image data and data gathering; mere manipulation of electronic data is typically considered extra-solution activity or the abstract idea itself. No specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, image signal processor, GPU, or display driver is recited. The mathematical concepts and mental process are described functionally without specifying particular structures, pipeline stages, or constraints that improve the rendering of multi-view frame technology itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 1, 14, 17 and 18 are ineligible under 101. They recite judicial exceptions (data gathering, manipulation, mathematical concepts) and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The recited additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional; therefore, the claims do not amount to “significantly more.”
Mere instructions to field of endeavor cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-6, 13, and 19-20 depend on claims 1 and 14, respectively. The dependent claims do not change the analysis.
Claims 7-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Regarding independent claims 7 and 15, the claims recite receiving at least one image frames of the plurality of image frames of the scene. Receiving the depth order of at least one of a plurality of objects present in the scene. Creating a texture layer for the depth order based on processing the at least one of the plurality of objects corresponding to each depth order in all of the received plurality of image frames. Combining the texture layers based on their corresponding depth orders. The limitation receiving at least one image frames of the plurality of image frames of the scene receiving images and receiving plurality of object are mere extra solution activity. The limitation creating a texture layer for the depth order based on processing the at least one of the plurality of objects corresponding to each depth order in all of the received plurality of image frames, is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation mathematical manipulation of image data (specification page 5 lines 3-4, describes mathematical manipulation in creating a texture layer). The limitation combining the texture layers based on their corresponding depth orders, is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation as mathematical manipulation and algorithm (specification page 5 lines 5-18, compositing techniques and blending weights of pixels). Limitation component of a mathematical concepts falls within grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite a particular machine that meaningfully limits the abstract processing. References to a “computing device,” “processor,” “memory,” and “non-transitory processor-readable medium” are generic computer components. The claims do not recite a transformation of an article to a different state or thing beyond manipulation of image data; mere manipulation of electronic data is typically considered extra-solution activity or the abstract idea itself. No specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, image signal processor, GPU, or display driver is recited. The algorithm is described functionally (creating texture layer and combining texture layer) without specifying particular structures, pipeline stages, or constraints that improve the rendering of multi-view frame technology itself.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 7 and 15 are ineligible under 101. They recite judicial exceptions (data gathering and manipulation, mathematical concepts) and do not integrate those exceptions into a practical application. The recited additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional; therefore, the claims do not amount to “significantly more.”
Mere instructions to field of endeavor cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 8-12 and 16 depends on claims 7 and 15, respectively. The dependent claims do not change the analysis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pournaghi et al (10,185,877) in view of Salahieh (10,965,932)
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 16 Pournaghi discloses,
Receiving at least one image frames of the plurality of image frames of the scene (note col. 16 lines 16-21, video content tracking object in sports video, examiner interprets videos provides image frames in sports videos include scene);
Receiving the depth order of at least one of a plurality of objects present in the scene (note col. 17 lines 24-26 and 34-35, determined depth order for the objects in the video frame).
Creating a texture layer for the depth order based on processing the at least one of the plurality of objects corresponding to each depth order in all of the received plurality of image frames (note fig. 6, expanded, ROI and col. 9 lines 34-39, examiner interprets depth levels determines as created texture layer); and Pournaghi does not clearly disclose combining the texture layers based on their corresponding depth orders. Salahieh discloses combining the texture layers based on their corresponding depth orders (note fig. 6, block 400 and col. 12 lines 19-25, N views include texture picture, examiner interprets as N views as combined views including texture picture as texture layer). Pournaghi and Salahieh are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include combining the texture layers based on their corresponding depth orders in the system of Pournaghi as evidence by Salahieh. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides improvement of technology multi-view coding schemes that deploy intermediate view synthesis to stream key views only, the artifacts coming from an incoherent depth content cause low compression efficiency (note col. 1 lines 44-50). It would have obvious to combine Salahieh and Pournaghi to obtain the invention as specified by claim 7.
Regarding claim 8 Pournaghi and Salahieh discloses,
Wherein the texture layer comprise transparent pixel and non-transparent pixel for the at least one of the plurality of object (note Pournaghi, col. 15 lines 30-34 and col. 17 lines 24-34, examiner interprets pixels or region of interest as transparent and pixels related to expanded ROI as non-transparent).
Regarding claim 9 Pournaghi and Salahieh discloses,
Wherein a texture layer is created by setting all pixel values to transparent, wherein all pixels correspond to the object are set to non-transparent values after setting all pixels values to transparent object (note Pournaghi, col. 15 lines 30-34 and col. 17 lines 24-34, examiner interprets pixels or region of interest as transparent and pixels related to expanded ROI as non-transparent).
Regarding claim 10 Pournaghi and Salahieh discloses,
Wherein combining the texture layers is based on alpha compositing (Salahieh, col. 12 lines 19-25, N views include texture picture, examiner interprets as N views as combined views including texture picture as texture layer).
Regarding claim 11 Pournaghi and Salahieh discloses,
Wherein each pixel of each texture layer comprises a transparency value, wherein the transparency value relates to the transparency and the blending weight of the pixel (Pournaghi, col. 15 lines 30-34 and col. 17 lines 24-34, examiner interprets pixels or region of interest as transparent and pixels related).
Regarding claim 12 Pournaghi and Salahieh discloses,
Wherein creating the texture layers based on at least one of the plurality of depth maps (Salahieh, col. 7 lines 18-25, texture video of view and depth map of views).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance for independent claims 1, 14, 17 and 18. Regarding claims 1, 14, 17 and 18 prior art could not be found for the features obtaining qualitative depth information, wherein the qualitative depth information relates to the depth of the first object relative to the second object, wherein the qualitative depth information is different from the information conveyed by the plurality of depth maps; determining a depth order for each of the plurality of objects based on the qualitative depth information, wherein the depth order determines the depth of at least one of the plurality of objects relative to any other object of the plurality of objects with a different depth order; These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art. Claims 2-6 and 19-20 depend on claims 1 and 14, respectively. Therefore are also allowable.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Related Prior Art
Shotton et al (9,053,571) cameras imaging a scene, wherein there are a plurality of objects present in the scene (note col. 7 lines 15-20).
Bollano et al (9,225,965) depth map of the plurality of depth maps corresponds to image frame (note col. 5 lines 55-65).
Hayashi (11,017,573) Receiving the depth order (note 15 block 60, depth order determination unit).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
February 27, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676