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 .
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 10-11, 13, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guizilini (US 2022/0148203).
As to claim 1, Guizilini discloses device comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2, para. 0027); and
memory storing instructions (Fig. 2, para. 0027) that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to:
obtain:
at least one first depth map based on at least one piece of cloud data associated with surrounding environment information (para. 0032, 0036, 0054, 0058, e.g., “the network module 220 generates a second depth map from the monocular image 450 and the depth features derived from the sparse depth data using the depth model 250”; the second depth map corresponds to the claim limitation “first depth map”; the sparse depth data comprises piece of cloud data associated with surrounding environment information); and
at least one first image associated with the at least one first depth map (para. 0054);
determine, based on the at least one first depth map and the at least one first image, first variance estimation information indicating a variance between the at least one first depth map and the at least one first image (para. 0050, 0051, 0059);
back-propagate a variance loss based on:
the first variance estimation information (para. 0050, 0059); and
first variance ground truth (GT) information associated with the first variance estimation information (para. 0051, 0055, 0059); and
update, based on the back-propagated variance loss, a parameter associated with determining the first variance estimation information (para. 0052, 0060).
As to claim 3, Guizilini discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the first variance estimation information comprises:
width variance estimation information indicating a width variance (para. 0050, 0051, 0059); and
height variance estimation information indicating a height variance (para. 0050, 0051, 0059),
wherein the width variance and the height variance are variances between respective pixels of the at least one first depth map and respective pixels of the at least one first image, the respective pixels of the at least one first image corresponding to the respective pixels of the at least one first depth map (para. 0050, 0051, 0059).
As to claim 10, Guizilini discloses a device comprising:
a processor (Fig. 2, para. 0027); and
memory storing instructions (Fig. 2, para. 0027) that, when executed by the processor, cause the device to:
obtain:
a depth map for testing based on point cloud data associated with surrounding environment information for testing (para. 0032, 0036, 0054); and
an image for testing associated with the depth map for testing (para. 0036, 0054);
determine variance estimation information for testing indicating a variance between the depth map for testing and the image for testing (para. 0050, 0051, 0059); and
determine, based on the variance estimation information for testing, suitability determination information for testing indicating whether the depth map for testing is acceptable for training of a depth map estimation network (para. 0052, 0060).
As to claims 11, 13, 19, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guizilini (US 2022/0148203) in view of Guizilini (US 2021/0004976) hereafter Guizilini-976.
As to claim 8, Guizilini is silent regarding applying a noise addition operation to the at least one piece of cloud data; and generating, based on the noise addition operation, the at least one first depth map.
Guizilini-976 teaches applying a noise addition operation to the at least one piece of cloud data (para. 0057); and generating, based on the noise addition operation, the at least one first depth map (para. 0060, 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Guizilini-976’s teachings into Guizilini since doing so would merely combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, and enhance training data.
As to claim 9, the combination of Guizilini and Guizilini-976 discloses the device of claim 8, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to: perform a filtering operation to remove data from the at least one piece of cloud data, the removed data corresponding to a position of the surrounding environment information (para. 0036, 0055); and generate, based on the filtering operation, the at least one first depth map (para. 0036, 0055).
As to claims 17-18, these claims recite features similar to those discussed above. Therefore, they are rejected for reasons similar to those discussed above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-7, 12, 14-16 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 prior art, Guizilini and Guizilini-976, discloses the claim limitations discussed above, but fails to disclose the combination of features required by each of dependent claims 2, 4, 12, 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUOC TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7399. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-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, Vu Le can be reached at 571-272-7332. 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.
/PHUOC TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668