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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the objections to the Drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the Drawings have been maintained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 1-20 under U.S.C. 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 6-10 and 16-20 under U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of Claims 6-10 and 16-20 under U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10 June 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1-3 and 11-13 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Specifically, the remarks state: “In other words, Hu discloses transformations based on computations utilizing matrices, and does not teach or suggest ‘a resizing map that encodes an input pixel to output pixel relationship based on resizing the first calibration image in accordance with the scaling factor,’ or to ‘resize a second calibration image by applying the resizing map stored in the lookup table.’” However, it appears a magnification matrix is disclosed in Specification Paragraph 0026 where it is assumed magnification increases the scale of an image and a matrix used in this fashion is a lookup table. Specifically noting in Equation 2 the focal lengths of respective cameras in the entries of the matrix serving as a lookup table. The matrix referred to as Equation 2 has been copied below.
PNG
media_image1.png
92
283
media_image1.png
Greyscale
These focal lengths being intrinsic parameters to an imaging setup also appears to show the purpose of this matrix as a lookup table. Also, in Specification Paragraph 0026 the focal lengths show a focal length ft which is specifically used for the second image from this lookup table or matrix.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu (US Publication No. 20230059657 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu discloses An apparatus, comprising: a processor (Reference “processor”, see Specification paragraph 0046 and 0047); a memory coupled to the processor (Reference “memory”, see Specification paragraph 0048 describing the processor and memory), the memory including processor executable instructions, which when executed by the processor configure the processor to (Reference “readable storage medium ”, see Specification paragraph 0048 where the processor is can execute the program on the readable storage medium): determine first intrinsic camera parameters for a first camera (Reference “focal length”, see Specification paragraph 0052 and 0053 where a focal length is determined for the first and second cameras and a focal length is an intrinsic parameter of a camera); determine second intrinsic camera parameters for a second camera (Reference “focal length”, see Specification paragraph 0052 and 0053 where a focal length is determined for the first and second cameras); compute a scaling factor f based on a relationship between the first intrinsic camera parameters and the second intrinsic camera parameters (Reference “focal length”, see Specification paragraph 0055 and Equation 2 where the focal lengths are used to create a magnification matrix which scales or magnifies an image by a scaling factor. Specifically note the fw and ft focal lengths which are for the first and second cameras respectively. The scaling factor being derived from focal lengths which are intrinsic camera parameters); resize a first calibration image in accordance with the scaling factor to provide a resized first calibration image (See Specification paragraph 0113 where the magnification matrix is further described and where it also describes being able to resize the second image. Finally note the telescale which is described in paragraph 0071 as being derived from fw or ft which are focal lengths or parameters of the cameras used to scale or resize the image) generate, and store in a lookup table, a resizing map that encodes an input pixel to output pixel relationship based on resizing (Note magnification matrix”, see Paragraph 0026 a where magnification increases the scale of an image and a matrix used in this fashion is a lookup table. Specifically noting in Equation 2 the focal lengths of respective cameras in the entries of the matrix serving as a lookup table) the first calibration image in accordance with the scaling factor (Note “magnification matrix”, see Specification paragraph 0026 where the magnification specified ); and resize a second calibration image by applying the resizing map stored in the lookup table to provide a resized second calibration image (Note magnification matrix”, see Paragraph 0026 noting the focal lengths entered in Equation 2 show a focal length ft which is specifically used for the second image from this lookup table or matrix).
Regarding Claim 2, Hu discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: map pixel coordinates of the resized first calibration image to pixel coordinates of the first calibration image to generate a resizing map (Reference “magnification matrix”, see Specification paragraph 0113 where the magnification matrix shows a matrix converting the first scaled image or resized image to the first original image, the first calibration image).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu discloses The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a distortion correction matrix for the first camera (Reference “Translation matrix”, see Specification paragraph 0065 where a transformation matrix that corresponds to the first scaled image is described); and apply the distortion correction matrix to the resized first calibration image to provide distortion-corrected resized first calibration image (Reference “Translation matrix” and “current magnification”, see Specification paragraph 0065 which corresponds to the region of interest to the first scaled image. Further see Specification paragraph 0154 describing this translation matrix).
Claim 11 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 1 albeit in method form which it is noted Hu also discloses a method form (See Specification paragraph 0041 where “embodiments of the present application provide a multi-camera zoom control method and apparatus”).
Claim 12 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 2.
Claim 13 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 3.
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 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Hu (US Publication No. 20230059657 A1) in view of Fletcher et al (US Publication No. 20180150962 A1)
Regarding Claim 4, Hu discloses The apparatus of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to: map pixel coordinates of the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to pixel coordinates of the resized first calibration image to generate a distortion correction map.
Instead, Fletcher discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: map pixel coordinates of the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to pixel coordinates of the resized first calibration image to generate a distortion correction map (Reference “step 1450”, see Specification paragraph 0280 where in step 1450, a distortion transform is determined based on the target patch data and defines the mapping of pixels in the target frame to pixels in a stabilized frame. Paragraph 0281 further describes this as being based off of a scalar shift estimate which would describe the resized image). The motivation is also taught by Fletcher where many more types of geometric aberrations or distortions can be corrected and are described (See Specification paragraph 0289 describing more distortion transforms which are applicable and the benefits of combining these transforms described as displacement fields and applying them in a one shot approach is described). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hu in view of Fletcher.
Claim 14 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over Hu (US Publication No. 20230059657 A1) in view of Kwon et al (US Publication No. 20160379335 A1)
Regarding Claim 5, Hu discloses The apparatus of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to: resample the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to provide resampled, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image; and map pixel coordinates of the resampled, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to pixel coordinates of the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to provide a resampling map.
Instead, Kwon discloses wherein the processor is configured to: resample the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image (Reference “operation 652”, see Specification paragraph 0107 where first “alternative distortions may also be applied or corrected for” which shows these images were first distortion corrected. Also see paragraph 0111 showing these steps for operation 652 are performed prior to the steps below for operation 661) to provide resampled, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image (Reference “operation 661”, See Specification paragraph 0114 where a pixel is generated for each sampling point and paragraph 0113 describing the determining of these pixels); and map pixel coordinates of the resampled, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to pixel coordinates of the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to provide a resampling map (Reference “operation 661”, see Specification paragraph 0113 which determines pixels corresponding to a mapped location of a sampling point”. Noting above again the order of operation for operations 652 and 661 ). The motivation is also taught by Kwon where more efficient rendering of these images may occur through specifically the use of these mappings of sampling points (See Specification paragraph 0175). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Hu in view of Kwon.
Claim 15 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 6, as noted above Hu in view of Kwon teach the apparatus of claim 5. However, they fail to teach: wherein the processor is further configured to resample the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image by: rectifying the distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to provide a rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image; warping the rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to fit a rectified, distortion-corrected, resized second calibration image and performing an inverse rectification of the rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image to provide the resampled, distortion-corrected resized first calibration image. Further, no reference appears to make an obvious combination to teach the specific limitations described above. Therefore, if Claim 6 contains allowable subject matter.
Claims 7-10 are also objected to as dependent claims to Claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is objected to for containing similar limitations to those described in Claim 6 above.
Claims 17-20 are also objected to as dependent claims to Claim 16 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ALEXANDER JOHN RODGERS whose telephone number is (703)756-1993. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30AM to 2:30PM 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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEXANDER JOHN RODGERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
