DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicants
This communication is in response to the Application filed on 12/29/2023.
Claims 1-40 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6/12/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim is drawn to a “machine-readable medium” comprising stored data – see paragraph [0078] in the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification concludes that the claim as a whole covers a transitory signal, which does not fall within the definition of a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter (In re Nuijten). Therefore, claim 38 does not fall within a statutory category. The Examiner recommends amending claim 28 to include "non-transitory computer-readable medium" to overcome the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection.
Dependent claims 39-40 are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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, 5, 7-15, 18, 21-24, 27, 30, 35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2020/0021716 to Sneyders et al. (hereafter, “Sneyders”).
With regard to claim 1 Sneyders discloses a system for adaptive color transformation to aid computer vision (CV system, paragraphs [0016, 0020], Fig. 1), the system comprising: a sensor interface configured to couple with one or more color image sensors (paragraph [0020], Fig. 1, sensor 120); and controller circuitry in communication with the sensor interface to receive a color image (paragraph [0023]), wherein the controller circuitry includes: mapping circuitry configured to map colors of the color image into a multi-dimensional space to generate a distribution of colors in the color image, a dimension of the multi-dimensional space corresponding to a color characteristic (paragraph [0023], “The preprocessing can be accomplished by the processing circuitry 110, circuitry in the sensor 120, or other component of the system 105 or the AEQ 125. In an example, the first color representation is red-green-blue (RGB).”, paragraphs [0036, 0040, 0045]); an array generator configured to generate an array of condensed representations of the distribution of colors, wherein a condensed representation is generated by rotating the distribution of colors by a color angle (paragraph [0032], “Once the angle of the line fit to the distribution is found, the processing circuitry 110 is arranged to transform the colors in the image based on the angle to produce a reduced image. Here, the transformation reduces a color complexity of the image.”); a comparator configured to select a high energy condensed representation of the array having an energy value greater than energy values of other condensed representations in the array (paragraph [0039], “When RANSAC is employed to fit the line to the distribution, lines can be randomly tested under different angles to count the number of data points within a certain distance from the line. Here, the quality indicator is higher when tested angles correspond to the first-found angle have higher counts.”); transformation circuitry configured to generate a reduced image of an agricultural field by transforming colors in the color image based on the color angle and the high energy condensed representation (paragraph [0024], “After the color image is obtained and possibly pre-processed, the technique involves finding a transformation of the remaining (e.g., two-channel or three-channel) color to a reduced channel (e.g., a single channel) color scale.”; paragraph [0032], “the transformation translates the distance between the distribution points of two or three dimensions on to a single dimension, maximize contrast (e.g., separation, distinctiveness, etc.) between the colors.”; Fig. 8, starting at paragraph [0053]); and output circuitry configured to output the reduced image of the agricultural field (paragraph [0058], Fig. 8, “operation 825, the reduced image is communicated to a receiver.”, Fig. 9 output controller 928).
With regard to claim 5 Sneyders discloses wherein the controller circuitry is configured to receive operator feedback to differentiate different portions of the color image (paragraphs [0041, 0044, 0064]).
With regard to claim 7 Sneyders discloses wherein the controller circuitry is configured to initiate the mapping of colors of the image into the multi-dimensional space in an ongoing manner (paragraph [0023], “The preprocessing can be accomplished by the processing circuitry 110, circuitry in the sensor 120, or other component of the system 105 or the AEQ 125. In an example, the first color representation is red-green-blue (RGB).” Fig. 3, paragraph [0036, 0040, 0045]).
With regard to claim 8 Sneyders discloses wherein the controller circuitry is configured to change the mapping of colors of the image into the multi-dimensional space in response to a quality indicator being below a quality threshold (paragraph 0038]).
With regard to claim 9 Sneyders discloses a user display for displaying the reduced image (paragraph 0064]).
With regard to claim 10 Sneyders discloses wherein the user display is configured to further display other color images from one or more color image sensors (paragraph 0064]).
With regard to claim 11 Sneyders discloses one or more color image sensors (paragraph 0020]).
With regard to claim 12 Sneyders discloses wherein the output circuitry is configured to output the reduced image of the agricultural field to an autonomous driving controller (paragraph 0005]).
With regard to claim 13 Sneyders discloses receiver circuitry and wherein the system is incorporated locally to an agricultural vehicle (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 14 Sneyders discloses wherein the color image is preprocessed from a first color representation without a luminance component of a color to a second color representation that includes a luminance component (paragraph 0023]).
With regard to claim 15 Sneyders discloses wherein the first color representation is red- green-blue (paragraph 0023]).
With regard to claim 18 Sneyders discloses wherein the second color representation includes a luminance component (Y) and two color components (UV) (paragraph 0023]).
With regard to claim 21 Sneyders discloses wherein the multi-dimensional space is two dimensions (paragraphs [0018, 0025]).
With regard to claims 22 and 38, claims 22 and 38 are rejected same as claim 1 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 22 and 38, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 1 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 23 and 39, claims 23 and 39 are rejected same as claim 14 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 14 are equally applicable to claims 23 and 39, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 14 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claims 24 and 40, claims 24 and 40 are rejected same as claim 15 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 15 are equally applicable to claims 24 and 40, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 15 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 27, claim 27 is rejected same as claim 18 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 18 are equally applicable to claim 27, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 18 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 30, claim 30 is rejected same as claim 21 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 21 are equally applicable to claim 30, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 21 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 35, claim 35 is rejected same as claim 5 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 5 are equally applicable to claim 35, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 5 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 37, claim 37 is rejected same as claim 7 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 7 are equally applicable to claim 37, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 7 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6, 16-17, 25-26 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0021716 to Sneyders et al. (hereafter, “Sneyders”) in view of EP0635971A2 to Shiau et al. (hereafter, “Shiau”).
With regard to claim 6, Sneyders teaches the system of claim 1. However, Sneyders does not teach a user input device, and wherein the controller circuitry is configured to initiate the mapping of colors of the image into the multi-dimensional space upon user input using the user input from the user input device. Shiau teaches a user input device, and wherein the controller circuitry is configured to initiate the mapping of colors of the image into the multi-dimensional space upon user input using the user input from the user input device (col. 10 lines 18-31).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sneyders’ reference to have initiate the mapping of colors upon user’s input of Shiau’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to realize the desired color and gradation, as suggested by Shiau at col. 3 lines 30-52.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shiau with Sneyders to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
With regard to claims 16-17, Sneyders teaches the system of claim 15. However, Sneyders does not teach wherein to map colors of the color image, the controller is configured to reduce shadow effects within the color image; wherein the controller circuitry is configured to reduce shadow effects by normalizing the first color representation. Shiau teaches wherein to map colors of the color image, the controller is configured to reduce shadow effects within the color image; wherein the controller circuitry is configured to reduce shadow effects by normalizing the first color representation (col. 2 lines 48-53 and col. 10 lines 32-38).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sneyders’ reference to have initiate the normalization process of Shiau’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to have pixels in question within the specified lightness range, as suggested by Shiau at col. 2.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Shiau with Sneyders to obtain the invention as specified in claims 16-17.
With regard to claims 25-26, claims 25-26 are rejected same as claims 16-17 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 16-17 are equally applicable to claims 25-26, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 16-17 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
With regard to claim 36, claim 36 is rejected same as claim 6 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claim 6 are equally applicable to claim 36, and all of the other limitations similar to claim 6 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Claims 19-20 and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0021716 to Sneyders et al. (hereafter, “Sneyders”) in view of US2007/0005208 to Han et al. (hereafter, “Han”).
With regard to claims 19-20, Sneyders teaches the system of claim 18. However, Sneyders does not teach wherein to map colors of the color image, the controller is configured to discard a value of the second color representation; and wherein the discarded value comprises an intensity value. Han teaches wherein to map colors of the color image, the controller is configured to discard a value of the second color representation; and wherein the discarded value comprises an intensity value (paragraphs [0035]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sneyders’ reference to have discard an intensity value of Han’s reference. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to produce grey-scale, mono-chrome, color, HSV or other segmented image data that excludes background data or all scene data outside of the windrows or harvested crop image data, as suggested by Han at paragraph [0035].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Han with Sneyders to obtain the invention as specified in claims 19-20.
With regard to claims 28-29, claims 28-29 are rejected same as claims 19-20 and the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 19-20 are equally applicable to claims 28-29, and all of the other limitations similar to claims 19-20 are not repeated herein, but incorporated by reference.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 31-34 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the cited art of record fails to teach limitation/feature of “wherein the comparator is configured to compute energy values by computing a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for each condensed representation in the array by: selecting a region of interest in the color image; for each subsection in the region of interest, computing a Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT); computing a signal energy based on the DFT and a total energy based on a sum of signal energies for each scan line; and determining the SNR by dividing the signal energy by the total energy” and corresponding limitation/feature in claim 21. Dependent claims are objected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEFALI D. GORADIA whose telephone number is (571)272-8958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-6PM, Friday 8AM-12PM.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
SHEFALI D. GORADIA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2676
/SHEFALI D GORADIA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676