DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of the present application being a National Stage of International Patent Application No. PCT/CA2022/051166, filed on July 29, 2022, and Applicant’s claim of priority and the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application Nos. 63/330,951 and 63/227,071, filed on April 14, 2022 and July 29, 2021, respectively.
Drawings
The 28-page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive and quite generic. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-25 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to, because it appears that the last limitation of Claim 1 has been recited before the preamble of Claim 2. In fact, Examiner assumes that the limitation “i.” of Claim 1 appears in Claim 2, because Claim 2 includes two ending periods (.), which is not allowed in a claim. So Examiner analyze Claim 1 as through the last limitation appeared as follows: “i. assembling the clips in an order.”
In addition, Steps d. and e. of Claim 1 uses upper case letters for the term “OR”, and initial caps for “Object Detection”. It is unclear as to why capital letters are required.
Claim 15 is objected to because there is a semi-colon “;” appears before or instead of a comma “,”.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant’s recitation of “products” and “systems” in Claims 24 and 25, respectively, denote that Applicant had the possession of all products and all systems that performs the steps recited in Claim 1 before the effective filing date of the application, for which the specification lacks written description. Although, Applicant’s specification discloses an example of a product and a system, to claim “products” and “systems”, Applicant needs to disclose in its specification a representative numbers of example, which Applicant’s specification lacks this teaching. “To satisfy the written description requirement, the specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345, 54 USPQ2d 1915, 1917 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("The purpose of [the written description requirement] is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude, as set forth in the claims, does not overreach the scope of the inventor’s contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification"); LizardTech Inc. v. Earth Resource Mapping Inc., 424 F.3d 1336, 1345, 76 USPQ2d 1724, 1732 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("Whether the flaw in the specification is regarded as a failure to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] possessed the full scope of the invention recited in [the claim] or a failure to enable the full breadth of that claim, the specification provides inadequate support for the claim under [§ 112(a) ]"); cf. id. ("A claim will not be invalidated on [§] 112 grounds simply because the embodiments of the specification do not contain examples explicitly covering the full scope of the claim language."”) (see MPEP 2161.01(I)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are the structural limitations that are required for product and system claims.
Claims 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Specifically, Claim 1, step d. recites “the IDM or object detection image”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “object detection image” in the claim. Dependent Claims 2-25 are rejected because this deficiency is not resolved in the dependent claims.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. Claim 2 recites “converting the object detection to system scale”. It is not clear what “system scale” is referred to. For the purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner interprets “grayscale” to be Applicant’s intention for “converting the object detection to system scale”. Claim 3 is rejected under this section based on its dependency from Claim 2.
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.
Claims 1-20 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerry C. Nims (US 7,639,838).
Consider Claim 1 (similarly Claims 24 and 25), Nims discloses “A method of image processing, the method comprising: a. obtaining an original image (OI)” (Fig. 10A:500); “b. obtaining an image depth map (IDM)” (Fig. 10A:504b); “c. posterizing the IDM where to a number of levels wherein the number is a final layer count (FLC)” (Fig. 10A: 504a and Column 12, line 65 through Column 13, line 9) ; “d. splitting the IDM OR Object Detection image based on the FLC” (Column 21, lines 27-33, where extracting image regions are disclosed); “e. Clipping the OI into a plurality of clips based on the split IDM OR Object Detection image” (Column 21, lines 27-33, where extracting image regions are disclosed, is considered clipping into a plurality of clips); “f. producing an infill/outfill between adjacent ones of the clips based on preceding clips in a production order” (Column 21, lines 49-59); “g. determining a number of retained pixels” (Fig. 10A:510 and Column 21, lines 59-67); “h. printing each of the clips on a medium; and i. assembling the clips in an order” (Column 17, lines 17-21). It should be noted that Nims provides references to example embodiments in its invention. Accordingly, before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings within different embodiments of Nims to analyze the claim limitations recited in Claim 1 of the instant application. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the different embodiments of Nims through various substitutions, variations, and modifications without departing from the scope of Nims’ invention (Nims, Column 25, lines 29-33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine different embodiments within Nims to obtain the invention of Claim 1. In addition, it should be noted that Nims discloses software products and systems for implementing its method (Column 8, lines 47-51, the image processing products; and the system of Fig. 1:10).
Consider Claim 2, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, further comprising converting the object detection to system scale” (Column 10, lines 35-38, where the DEPTHIMAGE is stored as a black and white grey-scale image).
Consider Claim 3, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 2, wherein the object detection comprises depictions of humans in the image in a first colour, background content in the image in a second colour and foreground content in a third colour” (Column 11, line 64 through Column 12, line 21, where use of different colors for different environments or objects are disclosed).
Consider Claim 4, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining an image depth map (IDM) comprises generating an image depth map (IDM)” (Fig. 2:202 and Column 8, line 59, the generation of depth map).
Consider Claim 5, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 4, further comprising converting the IDM to another coloring method that can be used to move consistently through the scale” (Column 10, lines 35-45).
Consider Claim 6, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 5, wherein the method comprises greyscale” (Column 10, lines 36-37).
Consider Claim 4, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, further comprising utilizing edge detection to identify and/or isolate one or more boundaries of one or more objects in the OI” (Column 15, lines 3-15, where edge extraction and extraction of boundaries are disclosed).
Consider Claim 8, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, further comprising utilizing object detecting to identify and/or isolate one or more objects in the OI” (Column 9, lines 11-17).
Consider Claim 9, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, further comprising sharpening a resolution of the IDM” (Column 21, line 59 through Column 22, line 15).
Consider Claim 10, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining comprises input from a user” (Column 8, lines 40, where the 2DIAMGE may be downloaded).
Consider Claim 11, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining comprises retrieval from electronic storage media” (Column 8, lines 40-43, where the 2DIAMGE may be downloaded from pre-stored image files , therefore, there is an implied storage medium).
Consider Claim 12, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining comprises capturing the OI via an image capture device” (Column 8, lines 37-39, 2DIMAGE generated by a digital camera).
Consider Claim 13, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 12, wherein the image capture device comprises a digital camera” (Column 8, lines 37-39, 2DIMAGE generated by a digital camera).
Consider Claim 14, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 13, wherein the digital camera is integrated with a processing device” (Column 8, lines 37-39, 2DIMAGE generated by a digital camera, which implies existence of a processing device. Also Column 8, line 7 discloses computer generated composite image, which requires a processing device).
Consider Claim 15, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the generating comprises extraction via the processing device; or, using an artificial intelligence system (Al) to create the IDM” (Column 21, line 24, the extracted depth map method 504a).
Consider Claims 16-19, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the FLC comprises in excess of 10 layers.”; “A method according to claim 15, wherein the FLC comprises in excess of 15 layers.”; “A method according to claim 1, wherein the FLC comprises more than 4 layers.”; and “A method according to claim 1, wherein the FLC comprises more than 2 layers.” (Column 18, lines 14 and 15, frame count is any integer greater than 2).
Consider Claim 20, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the FLC comprises 2 layers” (Column 23, line 14).
Consider Claim 23, Nims discloses “A method according to claim 1, wherein the medium comprises one or more of glass, canvas, silicone, crystal” (Column 17, lines 20-21, the lenticular media).
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jerry C. Nims (US 7,639,838) in view of Price et al. (Us 2021/0027479).
Consider Claims 21 and 22, although Nims discloses a network (Nims, Fig. 1: Network), it does not explicitly disclose “A method according to claim 20, wherein the producing is conducted via a further artificial intelligence processor” or “ A method according to claim 17, wherein the further artificial intelligence processor comprises the artificial intelligence processor”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Price discloses depth detecting machine learning algorithm with a processor configured to infill for the plurality of pixels that are associated with the transparent object (Price, Paragraph [0037]). One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would be motivated to combine Nims with teachings of Price to use artificial intelligence processor for its method. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the steps as claimed by known methods to create an automated method, and the results of the combination would have been predictable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nims and Price obtain the inventions of Claims 21 and 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure: Bhardwaj et al. (US 2017/0193672) and Wen-Kuo Lin (US 2016/0269709).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Siamak HARANDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1832. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30 - 6:00 ET.
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.
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662