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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Examiner now incorporates Chui US 2023/0124190 which teaches placing a 3d model into real imagery and maintains consistency of shadows and global illumination.
Pardeshi US 2022/0012568 teaches generating a plurality of synthetic images by moving an object to locations in an image.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour US 20220405874 in view of Chui US 2023/0124190.
As per claims 1, 8, 15. Barbour teaches A method for machine learning (ML) training dataset generation, the method comprising :receiving or generating, by a scene editor, an image; augmenting, using procedural generation, the image to include a three- dimensional (3D) model of an object resulting in a synthetic image; and generating, by a generative model and based on the synthetic image, a realistic image. [0041][0121]-[0123] (synthetic/hybrid AI generating many 3d image sets based on changing lighting, location, shadow, angle etc, based on original data captured)
Chui teaches by placing the 3d model into the real imagery such that the scene editor maintains global scene consistency including shadow geometry and global illumination of the 3d model relative to the real imagery, and adjusting the local image characteristics of the 3D model to match scene characteristics of the real imagery. [0017] (teaches merging captured content, reality with computer generated content, VR, including VR images that are photo realistic) [0020] (teaches content may be fully integrated such that perspective and correct lighting and shadows are consistent) [0021] ( captured photos are uploaded an used with ML, and AI) [0022] (objects placed in image are consistent with perspective, and lighting effects indistinguishable from what was captured by a camera) [0031] (extensive AI training based on input datasets)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Chui with the prior art because it is more resource efficient [0002].
As per claims 2, 9, 16. The method of claim 1, Barbour teaches further comprising training, based on real imagery from an imaging sensor and synthetic images from the scene editor, the generative model. [0121][0122] (training the AI model)
Chui teaches translate synthetic images into realistic images having characteristics of images generated by the imaging sensor. [0021] ( captured photos are uploaded an used with ML, and AI) [0022] (objects placed in image are consistent with perspective, and lighting effects indistinguishable from what was captured by a camera)
Claim(s) 3, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 17, 18, 19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour US 20220405874 in view of Chui US 20230124190 in view of Yang US 20220237908
As per claims 3, 10, 17. The method of claim 2, Yang teaches wherein the imaging sensor generates overhead imagery. [0052] (sky terrain)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date of the instant application to use the teaching of Yang with Barbour because it provides more realistic lighting scenarios.
As per claims 4, 11, 18 The method of claim 3, Barbour teaches herein the synthetic image includes an object placed at a geographical location, in an orientation, or for which real imagery is otherwise not available. [0122](teaches generating 3d images including location, orientation)
Claim(s) 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour US 20220405874 in view of Chui US 2023/0124190 in view of Pardeshi US 2022/0012568
As per claims 5, 12, 19 The method of claim 1, Pardeshi teaches teaches wherein procedural generation includes labelling locations in the synthetic image at which to locate the 3D model.
Labelling locations in the synthetic image at which to locate the 3D model and iterating through the labelled location to generate a plurality of synthetic images each synthetic image corresponding to a respective labelled location or combination of labelled locations. [0045][0055][0057][0059][0365] (teaches automatically generating a plurality of images based on placing an object in a scene and moving the location and pose of said object to labeled locations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current application to use the teaching of Pardeshi with the prior art because it provides for a plurality of images to choose from.
As per claim 6, 13, 20. The method of claim 5, Pardeshi teaches wherein procedural generation further includes automatically generating, for each labeled location or combination of labels, a synthetic image of the synthetic images consistent with the label or combination of labels. [0045][0055][0057][0059][0365] (teaches automatically generating a plurality of images based on placing an object in a scene and moving the location and pose of said object to labeled locations)
Claim(s) 7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbour US 20220405874 in view of Chui US 20230124190 in view of Park US 2024/0087265
As per claims 7, 14 The method of claim 1, Park teaches further comprising: receiving, by the scene editor, metadata of the image; and automatically adjusting, by the scene editor, a lighting angle, shadow, or combination thereof, of the 3D model based on the metadata. [0004] [0022][0056] [0027] [0060] (teaches taking a 2D image and contextual data and metadata to generate a 3d image including lighting effects which may be additionally edited by the user with additional contextual data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the priority date of the instant application to use the teaching of Park with Barbour because it allows easier user manipulation of a synthetic 3d image.
Chui teaches the metadata indicating at least one of a time of day, a view angle or a geolocation at which the real imagery was captured, such that the lighting angle and shadow of the 3D model are consistent with lighting conditions present in the real imagery. [0022] (teaches that the raw images include metadata like camera position (view angle).
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 CHRISTOPHER BROWN whose telephone number is (571)272-3833. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at (571) 270-5002. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER J BROWN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439
Prosecution Insights