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 .
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 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.
Applicant’s amendment/response filed 08/14/2025 has been entered and made of record. Claims 5-7, 13-15, and 17 were amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 9-10, 16-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2017/0109940) in view of Hoang et al. (US 7711044) and Côté et al. (US 2012/0081577).
Regarding claim 9, Guo teaches/suggests: A system comprising:
one or more processing units (Guo Fig. 3: processor 330) to:
at least one of: (i) a dynamic seam placement that is based at least on one or more locations of one or more detected objects in an environment around an ego-object (Guo [0111] “the electronic device 322 (e.g., image visualization adjuster 336) may adjust 1010 the image visualization based on one or more foreground object distances” [0071] “adjusting the image visualization may be performed based on dynamic data” [0042] “the combined image obtainer 332 may perform image alignment (e.g., registration), seam finding and/or merging”) or (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) bowl that adaptively models the environment with a shape based at least on one or more distances to the one or more detected objects (Guo [0056] “an image (e.g., a combined image) may be rendered in the shape of a bowl”);
Guo does not teach/suggest:
generating one or more visualizations based at least on relaxing or disabling temporal filtering that limits changes to a previous dynamic seam placement or a previous 3D bowl.
Hoang, however, teaches/suggests disabling temporal filtering (Hoang col. 13 ll. 15-20 “it may be beneficial to completely disable temporal filtering (i.e. set all M values to 0) immediately after a change of scene is detected and then to resume normal operation one frame later”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combined image of Guo to not be temporally filtered as taught/suggests by Gardner to be beneficial. As such, Guo as modified by Hoang teaches/suggests:
generating one or more visualizations based at least on relaxing or disabling temporal filtering that limits changes to a previous dynamic seam placement or a previous 3D bowl (Guo [0042] “the combined image obtainer 332 may perform image alignment (e.g., registration), seam finding and/or merging” [0056] “an image (e.g., a combined image) may be rendered in the shape of a bowl” [0071] “adjusting the image visualization may be performed based on dynamic data” Hoang col. 13 ll. 15-20 “it may be beneficial to completely disable temporal filtering (i.e. set all M values to 0) immediately after a change of scene is detected and then to resume normal operation one frame later”).
Guo and Hoang are silent regarding:
determine, for at least one future time interval, that a threshold change will occur; and
based at least on the determining that the threshold change will occur, generating one or more visualizations that at least partially conceal the threshold change based at least on relaxing or disabling temporal filtering that limits changes to a previous dynamic seam placement or a previous 3D bowl.
Côté, however, teaches/suggests:
determine, for at least one future time interval, that a threshold change will occur (Côté [0642] “When the difference in the metric is greater than a particular threshold, a scene change is predicted” [The future time interval is an inherent and/or implicit feature of the prediction.]);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the scene change of Guo as modified by Hoang to be predicted as taught/suggests by Côté to disable the temporal filtering. As such, Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté teaches/suggests:
based at least on the determining that the threshold change will occur, generating one or more visualizations that at least partially conceal the threshold change based at least on relaxing or disabling temporal filtering that limits changes to a previous dynamic seam placement or a previous 3D bowl (Guo [0042] “the combined image obtainer 332 may perform image alignment (e.g., registration), seam finding and/or merging” [0056] “an image (e.g., a combined image) may be rendered in the shape of a bowl” Hoang col. 13 ll. 15-20 “it may be beneficial to completely disable temporal filtering (i.e. set all M values to 0) immediately after a change of scene is detected and then to resume normal operation one frame later” Côté [0642] “When the difference in the metric is greater than a particular threshold, a scene change is predicted”).
Regarding claim 10, Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté teaches/suggests: The system of claim 9, the one or more processing units further to temporally mask the threshold change based at least on temporarily disabling the temporal filtering (Hoang col. 13 ll. 15-20 “it may be beneficial to completely disable temporal filtering (i.e. set all M values to 0) immediately after a change of scene is detected and then to resume normal operation one frame later” Côté [0642] “When the difference in the metric is greater than a particular threshold, a scene change is predicted”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 16, Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté teaches/suggests: The system of claim 9, wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content (Guo [0033] “virtual reality devices (e.g., headsets), augmented reality devices (e.g., headsets), mixed reality devices (e.g., headsets)”);
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Claims 17-18 and 20 recite limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claims 9-10, and 16, respectively, and are rejected for the same reason(s).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2017/0109940) in view of Hoang et al. (US 7711044) and Côté et al. (US 2012/0081577) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Gardner et al. (US 2014/0247365).
Regarding claim 11, Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté teaches/suggests: The system of claim 9, wherein the temporal filtering smooths changes to the previous dynamic seam placement or the previous 3D bowl (Guo [0042] “the combined image obtainer 332 may perform image alignment (e.g., registration), seam finding and/or merging” [0056] “an image (e.g., a combined image) may be rendered in the shape of a bowl” Hoang col. 1 line 56 – col. 2 line 11 “Digital video noise can be removed by a variety of known digital processing techniques such as … temporal filters”). The same rationale to combine as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated herein.
Guo, Hoang, and Côté are silent regarding the relaxing of the temporal filtering reduces latency introduced by the temporal filtering. Gardner, however, teaches/suggests the relaxing of the temporal filtering reduces latency introduced by the temporal filtering (Gardner [0064] “a user may select appropriate user settings 219 to partially or completely disable temporal filter 218 to prevent image lag from being exhibited by filtered signals 222 that might be attributable to temporal filtering”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temporal filtering of Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté to be disabled as taught/suggests by Gardner to prevent image lag.
Claim(s) 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 2017/0109940) in view of Hoang et al. (US 7711044) and Côté et al. (US 2012/0081577) as applied to claims 9 and 17 above, and further in view of Vanam et al. (US 11778224).
Regarding claim 12, Guo, Hoang, and Côté are silent regarding: The system of claim 9, the one or more processing units further to temporally mask the threshold change based at least on shortening a temporal window over which the temporal filtering is applied. Vanam, however, teaches/suggests to temporally mask the threshold change based at least on shortening a temporal window over which the temporal filtering is applied (Vanam col. 5 ll. 35-52 “the temporal window may be set to zero, effectively disabling the temporal filter”). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the temporal filtering of Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté such that the temporal window is set to zero (the shortening) as taught/suggests by Vanam to disable it.
Claim 19 recites limitation(s) similar in scope to those of claim 12, and is rejected for the same reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 are allowed.
Claims 13-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “[t]here is no mention of anticipating changes in the future. The term 'predict' appears to be used here to refer to estimating or inferring a change from existing data, rather than forecasting a future event ... independent claims 9 and 17, and their dependent claims, should also be found patentable over the cited references.” See Remarks, p. 13.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 9 and 17 recite “determining,” not “predicting.” As such, Applicant’s arguments regarding the “predicting” are moot.
Applicant further argues “[t]his does not involve 'at least partially conceal[ing] [a] threshold change to at least one of: (i) a dynamic seam placement ... or (ii) a three-dimensional (3D) bowl' ... the cited passage involves disabling noise filtering, not 'relaxing or disabling one or more constraints on changes to a previous dynamic seam placement or a previous 3D bowl.'” See Remarks, p. 14.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Guo discloses the dynamic seam placement and the 3D bowl. Hoang discloses disabling the temporal filtering during a scene change. Côté discloses the threshold change to predict the scene change. As such, Guo as modified by Hoang and Côté teaches/suggests at least partially concealing the threshold change by disabling the temporal filtering (the relaxing/disabling one or more constraints) as set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0310979 – predict scene change
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-270-7513. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-5PM 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, JASON CHAN can be reached on 571-272-3022. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANH-TUAN V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619