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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Double Patenting Rejection
Applicant arguments filed 7/7/26 in view of double patenting are acknowledged.
After carefully reviewing applicant amendments, double patenting guidance and applicant arguments, amendments are sufficient to overcome double patenting rejection.
PRIOR ART REJECTION
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1 & 10-12 filed 4/2/26. Applicants’ arguments filed on (4/2/26) have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 2, 5-6 & 8 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
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7 & 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
HIGAKI et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0259169) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0202495) & Ikenoue et al. (U.S. Publication 2018/0361240)
As to claims 1 & 10-12, HIGAKI discloses one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory and thereby cause the information processing apparatus ([0035-0038] discloses image processing apparatus to be implemented by software, with a processor executing a computer program stored in memory/storage) to: obtain first 3D shape data representing a shape of a 3D object ([0020] discloses point cloud data represents three dimensional coordinates of a plurality of points on a target object that has three dimensional shape.), obtain data of a shot image of a field of view including the 3D object ([0018] discloses image capture module 120 obtains high-resolution image MG2; synchronized image information is received by computing unit 130. [0021-0023] discloses camera capturing images containing object OB, including high resolution MG2. [0024] discloses MG1 and high resolution MG2 are synchronously obtained.), generate a depth map corresponding to the field of view of the shot image by projecting the first 3D shape data onto an image plane corresponding to the shot image ([0018] discloses projects each of a plurality of three dimensional coordinates representing the shape of a target object onto a two dimensional image and generates a range image (a depth map). [0022] discloses a point cloud projection unit 103 specifies projected positions for projecting three dimensional positions of each point represented by the point cloud data, onto a range image (a depth map) and the depth map is a projection plane).
HIGAKI is silent to increase a spatial resolution of an area of the depth map corresponding to an area of interest that is set for the shot image by using image data of the area of interest in the shot image and depth values of the area of the depth map corresponding to the area of interest, and generate second 3D shape data for the field of view by inversely projecting the depth map including the area with the increased spatial resolution from the image plane to 3D space, wherein the second 3D shape data includes a first portion corresponding to the area of interest and a second portion being outside the area of interest, and wherein a first spatial resolution of the first portion is higher than a second spatial resolution of the second portion.
However, Wang discloses increase a resolution of an area of the depth map corresponding to an area of interest that is set for the shot image; ([0007] discloses sets a three dimensional (3D) region of interest according to a predefined feature of a salient object, the high resolution image and the first depth map; and computes a second depth map whose depth resolution is greater than the depth resolution of the first depth map in the 3D region of interest. )([0017] discloses a high resolution depth measurement is performed inside a pre-defined region of interest (ROI), and a low resolution depth measurement is performed outside the region. [0024] discloses in Step S13, a 3D region of interest (ROI) is set. In Step S15, a second depth map is obtained, wherein in the 3D region of interest (ROI), the depth resolution of the second depth map is greater than the depth resolution of the first depth map. [0030] compute the second depth map to enhance the depth resolution along the Z-axis.)
using image data of the area of interest in the shot image. ([0017] discloses establishes a predefined 3D ROI. [0019] discloses ROI according to the salient object, high resolution image MG2, and first depth map. [0024] discloses repeating this in the method sequence. [0025] discloses identifies exemplary objects used to define the ROI.)
depth values of the area of the depth map corresponding to the area of interest. ([0024, 0030])
wherein the second 3D shape data includes a first portion corresponding to the area of interest and a second portion being outside the area of interest, and wherein a first spatial resolution of the first portion is higher than a second spatial resolution of the second portion. ([0017] discloses high resolution in the ROI and low resolution outside it. [0028] discloses specifically makes the ROI enhancement an XY/spatial resolution enhancement.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify HIGAKI’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve depth detail in the area of interest while avoiding the computational cost of uniformly increasing depth resolution across the entire field of view.
HIGAKI in view of Wang is silent to generate second 3D shape data for the field of view by inversely projecting the depth map including the area with the increased spatial resolution from the image plane to 3D space.
However, Ikenoue discloses generate second 3D shape data for the field of view by inversely projecting the depth map including the area with the increased spatial resolution from the image plane to 3D space.([0055-0056] discloses image plane X-Y position plus depth Z is inversely projected to obtain the corresponding position in three-dimensional real space. [0075] discloses point cloud 172 is obtained by inversely projecting a depth map of the objects to a 3D space. [0076] discloses each depth map pixel contains a depth value and is plotted in virtual 3D space according to that value to form the point cloud. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify HIGAKI in view of Wang’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to convert the depth map representation into corresponding three dimensional point shape data.
As to claim 4, HIGAKI in view of Wang & Ikenoue discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Wang discloses wherein a spatial resolution of the image data of the area of interest used when increasing the spatial resolution of the area of the depth map is higher than a spatial resolution of the area of interest in the shot image. ([0018, 0022-0024, 0031])
As to claim 7, HIGAKI in view of Wang & Ikenoue discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Wang discloses wherein the one or more processors further cause the information processing apparatus to set the area of interest for the shot image, and wherein an area of a specific object included in the shot image is set as the area of interest. ([0017-0020, 0025, 0032-0033])
As to claim 9, HIGAKI in view of Wang & Ikenoue discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Wang discloses wherein the first 3D shape data and the second 3D shape data are point group data.
However, Higaki discloses supplying the first 3D shape data as a point cloud data.
([0020] discloses point cloud data represents three dimensional coordinates of a plurality of points on a target object.)
However, Ikenoue discloses supplying the second 3D shape data/ final 3D output as point cloud data. ([0075-0076])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify HIGAKI in view of Wang & Ikenoue’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to preserve compatibility between the 3D data representations used for projection, ROI refinement, and final 3D model generation.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 2, 5-6 & 8 in their current form.
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 Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights