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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "Camera 260 and CAM2110" have both been used to designate the Camera 260 (See Figures 3 and 11 respectively). Similarly, “Image I1 and Image I11” have both been used to designate the images from camera 250 (See Figures 3 and 11 respectively). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 6-10 and 16-20 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the claim recites the limitation "The apparatus of claim 5, wherein the processor is further configured to resample the distortion-corrected resized first calibration images by: rectifying the distortion-corrected resized first calibration images to provide rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration images; warping the rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration images to fit rectified, distortion-corrected, resized second calibration images; and performing an inverse rectification of the rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration images to provide the resampled, distortion-corrected resized first calibration images.". However, there is no previous mention of “rectified, distortion-corrected, resized second calibration images” and therefore it is not entirely clear what is being claimed when “warping the rectified, distortion-corrected resized first calibration images to fit rectified, distortion-corrected, resized second calibration images” is being performed. That is, it is difficult to tell what exactly the warping is fit to which in turn makes discerning a precise interpretation of the claims difficult. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7-10 are rejected for being dependent to Claim 6 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 6 above.
Claims 17-20 are rejected for being dependent to Claim 16 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
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 1-20 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 claim(s) contains 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.
Regarding Claim 1, the claim recites the limitation “compute a scaling factor for resizing first calibration images and a second calibration images based on a relationship between the first intrinsic camera parameters and the second intrinsic camera parameters; and resize the first calibration images and the second calibration images in accordance with the scaling factor to provide resized first calibration images and resized second calibration images.”
35 U.S.C. § 112(a) requires that the “specification shall contain a written description of the invention”. To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent 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. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d at 1563, 19 USPQ2d at 1116. An applicant shows possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
There is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present when the application is filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 263, 191 USPQ 90, 97 (CCPA 1976) (“we are of the opinion that the PTO has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasons why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims”). However, as discussed in subsection I., supra, the issue of a lack of adequate written description may arise even for an original claim when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art. While it is not necessary for the examiner to present factual evidence, to make a prima facie case it is necessary to point out the claim limitations that are not adequately supported and explain any other reasons that the claim is not fully supported by the disclosure to show that the inventor had possession of the invention. See for example, Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1371, 83 USPQ2d 1373, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
The courts have described the essential question to be addressed in a description requirement issue in a variety of ways. An objective standard for determining compliance with the written description requirement is, “does the description clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed.” In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Under Vas-Cath, Inc.v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), to satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the invention, in that context, is whatever is now claimed. The test for sufficiency of support in a parent application is whether the disclosure of the application relied upon “reasonably conveys to the artisan that the inventor had possession at that time of the later claimed subject matter.” Ralston Purina Co.v.Far-Mar-Co., Inc., 772 F.2d 1570, 1575, 227 USPQ 177, 179 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting In reKaslow, 707 F.2d 1366, 1375, 217 USPQ 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). See MPEP§ 2163 - https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2163.html.
Returning to claim 1, applicant recites the limitation of “compute a scaling factor for resizing first calibration images and a second calibration images based on a relationship between the first intrinsic camera parameters and the second intrinsic camera parameters; and resize the first calibration images and the second calibration images in accordance with the scaling factor to provide resized first calibration images and resized second calibration images.” This limitation is not sufficiently described in the specification to show that applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the filing of the application.
In the specification and in the drawings it appears this scaling factor is only used to resize the first calibration images and not the second. Looking to the Drawings, we see in Figure 3 only the images from camera 250, image I1, appear to be resized and no part of camera 260 is used in resizing or input to the resizing LUT. Similarly, Figure 7 only describes resizing Image I1 as well as Figure 8A. Figure 11 describes resizing an image I11, but here it should be noted in the Objections above where it is assumed this is meant to be I1 as well. Therefore, the drawings do not describe any place an I2 specifically from camera 260 and not from camera 250 as shown in Figure 3 might be resized. Further, the specification made no specific mention of resizing image I2 or the second image from the second camera specifically other than the exact same claim language restated (See Specification paragraph 0027). There is structure showing the resizing of the first image I1 as described above, but there is no significant structure describing how I2 might be resized. This leaves the question of is I2 resized in exactly the same way or in some other fashion? This specification is silent to this question except for paragraphs such as 0077 which state that the “LUTs perform their respective functions in the same manner for every image” but never describes any input of image I2 to any such resizing structures. Without I2 ever even being input into such systems, the specification does not necessarily show the applicant is in possession of an invention capable of resizing two separate sets of images. Some further confusion arises from the Specification claiming I1 can be registered to image I2 without even processing any I2 images (See Specification paragraph 0089). Quoting from 2163.01 of the MPEP, “A written description requirement issue generally involves the question of whether the subject matter of a claim is supported by [conforms to] the disclosure of an application as filed. If the examiner concludes that the claimed subject matter is not supported [described] in an application as filed, this would result in a rejection of the claim on the ground of a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, or denial of the benefit of the filing date of a previously filed application”. Therefore, the claim should be rejected on the ground of a lack of written description.
Claims 2-10 are rejected for being dependent to Claim 1 above.
Claim 11 is rejected for containing similar limitations to Claim 1 above.
Claims 12-20 are rejected for being dependent to Claim 11.
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 for resizing first calibration images and a second calibration images 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); and resize the first calibration images and the second calibration images in accordance with the scaling factor to provide resized first calibration images and resized second calibration images (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).
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 images to pixel coordinates of the first calibration images 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 images to provide distortion-corrected resized first calibration images (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.
Conclusion
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