CTFR 18/376,056 CTFR 84569 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 1. Applicant’s arguments filed 4-22-26 have been fully considered. The 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn. With respect to claims 1, applicant amends the claims to recite “estimate, on the basis of the virtual camera image, a camera image shot by a real camera, and the point cloud data, a location of the real camera at which the camera image was shot, wherein the location is constrained to be within a same three-dimensional space as the three-dimensional space in which is the specific location, and argues that the prior art does not teach the claim limitations. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Lee (See Pages 8-11) teaches of using the virtual camera, actual/real camera image and point cloud data to estimate/determine the camera position of the actual/real camera in order to be able to set the virtual camera to the same exact viewpoint. Furthermore, since the viewpoint is 3D matched, the specific location would also be within the same space. For the reasons stated above and detailed below, the rejections are maintained. Claim Objections 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 2. Claim s 2-7 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 3. 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA 4. Claim s 1 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colmenares et al., US 2021/0256729 in view of Lee et al., KR 20200132065 (English translation) . Regarding claim 1, Colmenares teaches of an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions (See [0034] and [0097] memory to store instructions); and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (See [0034] and [0097] processor for executing the instructions) to: generate a virtual camera image shot by a virtual camera in a specific location and orientation in a three-dimensional space on the basis of point cloud data of the three-dimensional space (See [0018], [0024], [0028]-[0029], [0035] and [0038 which discloses of the virtual camera image shot of a specific location and orientation in a 3D space and generating a point cloud and/or 3D mesh of the scene). Colmenares is silent with respect to estimate, on the basis of the virtual camera image, a camera image shot by a real camera, and the point cloud data, a location of the real camera at which the camera image was shot, wherein the location is constrained to be within a same three-dimensional space as the three-dimensional space in which is the specific location. However, in the same field of endeavor, Lee teaches of estimate, on the basis of the virtual camera image, a camera image shot by a real camera, and the point cloud data, a location of the real camera at which the camera image was shot, wherein the location is constrained to be within a same three-dimensional space as the three-dimensional space in which is the specific location (See Pages 8-11 which teaches of using the virtual camera, actual/real camera image and point cloud data to estimate/determine the camera position of the actual/real camera in order to be able to set the virtual camera to the same exact viewpoint. Furthermore, since the viewpoint is 3D matched, the specific location would also be within the same space). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colmenares to have incorporated the teachings of Lee for the mere benefit of being able to track and align cameras and/or images in the virtual environment with the real-world environment. Regarding claim 8, the combination teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the point cloud data is generated by at least one of a LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging, Laser Imaging Detection And Ranging), a ToF (Time of Flight) camera, a stereo camera, and a 3D (Dimension) scanner (See Colmenares, [0028] lidar and stereoscopic). Regarding claim 9, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Regarding claim 10, the claim has been analyzed and rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 . Conclusion 07-40 AIA 5. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action. Contact 6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ricky Chin whose telephone number is 571-270-3753. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-6:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached on 571-272-3982. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. 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). /Ricky Chin/ Primary Examiner AU 2424 (571) 270-3753 Ricky.Chin@uspto.gov Application/Control Number: 18/376,056 Page 2 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/376,056 Page 3 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/376,056 Page 4 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/376,056 Page 5 Art Unit: 2424 Application/Control Number: 18/376,056 Page 6 Art Unit: 2424
Prosecution Insights