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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The examiner appreciates applicant’s arguments with respect to the “inverse mapping technique.” This argument would be persuasive if the claim language properly reflected such an interpretation and only such an interpretation. However, the amended claim language is not so narrow as to exclude any other type of mapping. As Berkey maps each pixel in the input image to the projection, there is an identification, for each pixel in the projection, a corresponding pixel position in the input image that the pixel information is extracted and moved to the projection. Put another way, an identification that point (0,1) in the input corresponds to point (3,4) in the projection is an identification of a pixel in the projection that corresponds to a point in the input. As each point in the projection corresponds to an point in the input, the Berkey meets the language as amended. The examiner has thought about possible claim amendments to make applicant’s inverse mapping technique reflective in the claims, but has been unable to arrive at a possible suggestion. The examiner would welcome a collaboration with applicant to hopefully come to language that is acceptable to both to expedite prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, 20-21 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US 2005/0058360, Berkey et al. (hereafter Berkey)
1. A method comprising:
accessing an input image captured by a camera, wherein the image comprises pixels distorted in a radial direction; (Berkey ¶24 accesses a fisheye camera image; see also ¶27, 38-39)
defining a projection of a region within the image corresponding to a set of control signals mimicking adjustments to a field of view of the camera, wherein the projection is a two-dimensional coordinate plane of the region without distortions in the radial direction; (Berkey ¶45 virtual views which are a portion of the full fisheye view)
normalizing each point on the projection onto a three-dimensional coordinate sphere, wherein the coordinate sphere represents a full range of motion of the camera; (Berkey ¶70-99 generally discuss points on the image to a 3d coordinate system and transforming to a 2d undistorted view, see also discussion related to Figs 3 and 4)
mapping each normalized point on the coordinate sphere to a two-dimensional point on the input image by identifying, for each pixel position in the projection, a corresponding pixel position in the input image from which to extract image data; and (Berkey ¶70-99 generally discuss points on the image to a 3d coordinate system and transforming to a 2d undistorted view, see also discussion related to Figs 3 and 4 as Berkey maps each pixel in the input image to the projection, there is an identification, for each pixel in the projection, a corresponding pixel position in the input image that the pixel information is extracted and moved to the projection)
for each mapped point on the input image, extracting a pixel value from a pixel at the mapped point to project the pixel value at a corresponding position on the projection of the region. (Berkey ¶70-99 generally discuss points on the image to a 3d coordinate system and transforming to a 2d undistorted view, see also discussion related to Figs 3 and 4)
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under a similar rationale.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
applying a scale factor to each coordinate of each point on the projection; and (Berkey ¶77 scale factor)
applying a linear transform to rotate the projection to be tangent to a point on the coordinate sphere. (Berkey ¶77 rotate the fisheye image to create a transform into a rectilinear image)
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under a similar rationale.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein normalizing each point on the projection onto a three-dimensional coordinate sphere comprises:
determining a normalization factor for each point on the projection based on the position of each point on the projection and a radial distance of each point on the projection; and (Berkey ¶77 finds points based on radius)
applying a normalization factor to each coordinate of each point on the projection to map each point on the projection to a point on the three-dimensional coordinate sphere. (Berkey ¶77 finds points based on radius, note this is repeated for each point in order to obtain the undistorted view)
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under a similar rationale.
6. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
monitoring the field of view corresponding to the projection within a boundary box, wherein the boundary box defines points on the input image with non-zero pixel values; and (Berkey Fig 2, making the virtual views stay within the box)
responsive to determining the field of view exceeds the boundary box, modifying the field of view to remain within the boundary box. (Berkey Fig 2 the view is maintained within the boundary box)
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under a similar rationale.
7. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
mapping the position of each pixel on the input image to a point on the three- dimensional coordinate sphere, wherein distortion of the pixel is modeled in a z-coordinate of the point on the three-dimensional coordinate sphere. (Berkey ¶77 finds points based on radius)
Claims 14 and 21 are rejected under a similar rationale.
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 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Berkey in view of US 2007/0263093, Acree (hereafter Acree)
4. The method of claim 1, wherein mapping each normalized point on the coordinate sphere to a two-dimensional point on the input image comprises:
for each normalized point on the coordinate sphere, determining a warp factor based on a z-coordinate of the normalized point, wherein the warp factor is stored in a lookup table of z-coordinates; Berkey ¶43 discloses dewarping, which is would determine a warp factor for the points)
determining a set of scaled coordinates by applying the warp factor to an X- coordinate and y-coordinate of the normalized point; and (Berkey ¶77 scale factor for x-y coordinates)
Berkey does not disclose a lookup table and determining a point on the input image corresponding to the normalized point based on the set of scaled coordinates.
However, in another fisheye transform Acree ¶32 discloses the use of a lookup table to assist in the transformation of the image. Acree Fig 9 illustrates the use of the lookup table to determine a point on the image to a point on the normalized image. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Berkey to utilize a lookup table for the purpose of assisting in the transformation of the image as taught by Acree.
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under a similar rationale.
Claims 5, 12, 19 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Berkey
Berkey does not disclose
5. The method of claim 1, wherein extracting image data from the pixel at the mapped point comprises:
interpolating a plurality of neighboring pixels to determine an average pixel value for the mapped point on the input image.
However, nearest neighbor interpolation is a well-known method for filling in gaps when an image is rotated or warped (both occur in a fisheye to rectilinear transformation) and it would have been obvious to utilize such a process for the purposes of filling in gaps in the transformed image.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under a similar rationale.
Conclusion
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 Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg Morse can be reached on 571-272-38383838. 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.
/Ming Shui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663