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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/20/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims:
1-20 are pending
7, 13, and 19 are amended
1-20 are rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the following limitation “with the reference curve as offset from the reference curve “, however nowhere explicitly or even implicitly recites any type of language that would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret the meaning of the limitation “with the reference curve as offset from the reference curve “.
Claims 7, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “at a location offset from the reference curve;” “resultant curve in the user interface with the reference curve as offset from the reference curve based on the location”. The location offset from the reference curve is not found in the specification, nor is it shown in the specification. The cited portion of figures 16 and 18 do not mention a specific offset but merely show curves without the explanation of the offset.
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, 3, and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213) and Jaklic et al. (US 10620531).
Regarding claim 1
Peterson teaches:
A method comprising (Peterson [0137] Individual embodiments may be described above as a process or method which is depicted as a flowchart, a flow diagram, a data flow diagram, a structure diagram, or a block diagram.):
receiving, by a processing device, a selection of a reference curve from one or more vector paths displayed in a user interface (Peterson [0089] In examples where a vector drawing segment 654 is made up of multiple Bézier curves, the image conversion system 200 can provide vector controls 656 for each Bézier curve. In some implementations, the image conversion system 200 can hide the vector controls 656 from display the graphical user interface 642 until the user selects the vector drawing segment 654 and/or selects an option to show the vector controls 656.);
receiving, by the processing device, an input via the user interface defining a path in the user interface (Peterson [0008] In some examples, a user can perform a tracing operation using an input device (e.g., a pointing device such as a pen, a touch interface such as a touchscreen or touchpad, a mouse, or other input device) to trace a path over or proximate to an edge depicted in the raster image displayed on the graphical user interface.);
calculating, by the processing device, a resultant curve that imitates a trajectory of the reference curve based on the vector path and the selected reference points along the reference curve (Peterson [0021] In some implementations, a vector drawing segment includes a cubic Bézier segment (e.g. a single cubic curve defined by four control points), a cubic Bézier curve (e.g., one or more connected cubic Bézier segments), a Bézier path (e.g., a combination of Bézier curves and straight lines), or the like. A Bézier curve refers to a parametric curve used to model smooth curves. A Bézier curve includes one or more cubic Bézier segments, where each Bézier segment is defined by multiple points (e.g., a start point, an end point, and two control points). In some examples, a Bézier curve can include Bézier segments defined for any degree (e.g., linear, quadratic, cubic, etc.). While Bézier segments and curves are used herein as examples of vector drawing segments, the image conversion systems and techniques described herein may additionally or alternatively use other forms of parametric segments and curves as vector drawing segments, such as Hermite curves, B-splines, non-uniform rational basis splines, Kappa-curves, Catmull-Rom splines, any combination thereof, and/or another parameter curves that are able to approximate a dense series of points.).
displaying by the processing device, the resultant curve in the user interface (Peterson [0008] In some examples, a user can perform a tracing operation using an input device (e.g., a pointing device such as a pen, a touch interface such as a touchscreen or touchpad, a mouse, or other input device) to trace a path over or proximate to an edge depicted in the raster image displayed on the graphical user interface.).
Peterson fails to teach:
selecting, by the processing device, reference points along the reference curve based on the path (Bedi [0026] To examine the shape, the selection 407a, encompassing the object 405a, is reduced to its component edges (also referred to as an “edge map”) by combining multiple points in the selection 407a using Bézier curve equations.);
Bedi teaches:
selecting, by the processing device, reference points along the reference curve based on the path (Bedi [0026] To examine the shape, the selection 407a, encompassing the object 405a, is reduced to its component edges (also referred to as an “edge map”) by combining multiple points in the selection 407a using Bézier curve equations.);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson with Bedi and Jaklic. Selecting points on the path and refining curves, as in Bedi and Jaklic, would benefit the Peterson teachings by allowing for the certain points of a curve to be selected and then processed and refining the curves. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, selecting points on the path, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2:
Peterson and Bedi teach:
The method as described in claim 1,
Wherein the resultant curve extends the reference curve in the user interface (Peterson [0007] An image conversion system and related techniques are described herein that perform content aware image conversion (e.g., to convert a raster image to a vector drawing). In some examples, an edge detection process is performed on the visible portion of a raster image. An edge map can be generated based on the results of edge detection. In some cases, the edge map includes digital representation of the edges in the raster image, such as a bitmap. The edge map can be used to determine one or more edges in the raster image that correspond to a user interaction with a graphical user interface displaying the raster image.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson with Bedi and Jaklic. Selecting points on the path and refining curves, as in Bedi and Jaklic, would benefit the Peterson teachings by allowing for the certain points of a curve to be selected and then processed and refining the curves. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, selecting points on the path, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 3:
Peterson and Bedi teach:
The method as described in claim 2,
wherein the resultant curve replaces the path in the user interface (Peterson [0056] For example, as described previously, a user can select an edge tracing option and can operate an input device to move a cursor displayed on the graphical user interface along a path on or proximate to an edge of a raster image. As the user moves the cursor using the input device, the image conversion system 200 or device or application operating the image conversion system can track the movement of the cursor relative to the edge for the tracing operation, and can save (at block 410) validated edge points for use in generating one or more vector drawing segments for the tracing operation.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson with Bedi and Jaklic. Selecting points on the path and refining curves, as in Bedi and Jaklic, would benefit the Peterson teachings by allowing for the certain points of a curve to be selected and then processed and refining the curves. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, selecting points on the path, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 7:
Peterson and Bedi teach:
The method as described in claim 1,
further comprising outputting the resultant curve in the user interface (Peterson [0007] An image conversion system and related techniques are described herein that perform content aware image conversion (e.g., to convert a raster image to a vector drawing). In some examples, an edge detection process is performed on the visible portion of a raster image. An edge map can be generated based on the results of edge detection. In some cases, the edge map includes digital representation of the edges in the raster image, such as a bitmap. The edge map can be used to determine one or more edges in the raster image that correspond to a user interaction with a graphical user interface displaying the raster image.) .
Peterson and Bedi fail to teach:
with the reference curve as offset from the reference curve (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.).
Jaklic teaches:
with the reference curve as offset from the reference curve (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson with Bedi and Jaklic. Selecting points on the path and refining curves, as in Bedi and Jaklic, would benefit the Peterson teachings by allowing for the certain points of a curve to be selected and then processed and refining the curves. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, selecting points on the path, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 8:
Peterson teaches:
The method as described in claim 1,
Peterson fails to teach:
further comprising refining, by the processing device, the resultant curve.
Jaklic teaches:
further comprising refining, by the processing device, the resultant curve (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3. [0124] In some embodiments, step 1216 includes forming a second discretized segmentation of a second parametrized curve, wherein the second parametrized curve is a parallel translation of the parametrized curve. In some embodiments, step 1216 includes verifying that no artifacts are present in the discretized segmentation of the parametrized curve, wherein the artifacts comprise a cusp or an intersection. In some embodiments, step 1216 includes identifying an artifact in the discretized segmentation of the parametrized curve and removing a parameter value within the artifact.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson with Bedi and Jaklic. Selecting points on the path and refining curves, as in Bedi and Jaklic, would benefit the Peterson teachings by allowing for the certain points of a curve to be selected and then processed and refining the curves. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, selecting points on the path, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 9:
Peterson and Jaklic teach:
The method as described in claim 8,
Wherein the refining the resultant curve includes removing a loop artifact (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3. [0124] In some embodiments, step 1216 includes forming a second discretized segmentation of a second parametrized curve, wherein the second parametrized curve is a parallel translation of the parametrized curve. In some embodiments, step 1216 includes verifying that no artifacts are present in the discretized segmentation of the parametrized curve, wherein the artifacts comprise a cusp or an intersection. In some embodiments, step 1216 includes identifying an artifact in the discretized segmentation of the parametrized curve and removing a parameter value within the artifact.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson with Bedi and Jaklic. Selecting points on the path and refining curves, as in Bedi and Jaklic, would benefit the Peterson teachings by allowing for the certain points of a curve to be selected and then processed and refining the curves. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, selecting points on the path, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 4, 13, 14, 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Liu et al. (CN 113763481) and Jaklic et al. (US 10620531).
Regarding claim 4:
Peterson and Bedi teaches:
The method as described in claim 3,
Peterson and Bedi fails to teach:
wherein the receiving the path includes identifying a last anchor position as a first anchor point and a current anchor position of a position indicator as a second anchor point.
Liu teaches:
wherein the receiving the path includes identifying a last anchor position as a first anchor point and a current anchor position of a position indicator as a second anchor point (Liu [Pg 3 Par 8] The present invention is further configured to: in the step S1, based on the anchor point measuring position of each camera on one time, the anchor point optimal pose of the last moment; measuring the position of the anchor point at the current time; estimating the optimal predicted position of the anchor point at the current time; combining the image feature points and feature descriptors of all the camera images at the current time; respectively the first visual map point tracked at the time of the same camera at the same time; obtaining the second visual map point and the second position on the current image of each camera at the current time; calculating the first optimal rotation of the anchor point at the current time.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, with Liu. Having anchor positions, as in Liu, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for fixed positions. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, having certain anchor positions, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 13:
Peterson teaches:
A system comprising (Peterson [0002] One type of digital graphic that can be created and/or edited by a computing system and related software is a vector drawing.): a reference curve selection module implemented by a processing device to select a reference curve from one or more vector paths (Peterson [0021] In some implementations, a vector drawing segment includes a cubic Bézier segment (e.g. a single cubic curve defined by four control points), a cubic Bézier curve (e.g., one or more connected cubic Bézier segments), a Bézier path (e.g., a combination of Bézier curves and straight lines), or the like. A Bézier curve refers to a parametric curve used to model smooth curves. A Bézier curve includes one or more cubic Bézier segments, where each Bézier segment is defined by multiple points (e.g., a start point, an end point, and two control points). In some examples, a Bézier curve can include Bézier segments defined for any degree (e.g., linear, quadratic, cubic, etc.). While Bézier segments and curves are used herein as examples of vector drawing segments, the image conversion systems and techniques described herein may additionally or alternatively use other forms of parametric segments and curves as vector drawing segments, such as Hermite curves, B-splines, non-uniform rational basis splines, Kappa-curves, Catmull-Rom splines, any combination thereof, and/or another parameter curves that are able to approximate a dense series of points.);
A computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, responsive to execution by the processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations including:
Peterson alone fails to teach:
Selecting reference points along one or more vector paths of a reference curve based on the first and second anchor points
Identifying a path as a freeform line in a user interface having a first anchor point and a second anchor point;
And calculating a resultant curve based on the path, the first and second anchor points, and the selected reference points of the reference curve.
Bedi teaches:
selecting reference points along one or more vector paths of a reference curve … … based on the first and second anchor points (Peterson [0021] In some implementations, a vector drawing segment includes a cubic Bézier segment (e.g. a single cubic curve defined by four control points), a cubic Bézier curve (e.g., one or more connected cubic Bézier segments), a Bézier path (e.g., a combination of Bézier curves and straight lines), or the like. A Bézier curve refers to a parametric curve used to model smooth curves. A Bézier curve includes one or more cubic Bézier segments, where each Bézier segment is defined by multiple points (e.g., a start point, an end point, and two control points). In some examples, a Bézier curve can include Bézier segments defined for any degree (e.g., linear, quadratic, cubic, etc.). While Bézier segments and curves are used herein as examples of vector drawing segments, the image conversion systems and techniques described herein may additionally or alternatively use other forms of parametric segments and curves as vector drawing segments, such as Hermite curves, B-splines, non-uniform rational basis splines, Kappa-curves, Catmull-Rom splines, any combination thereof, and/or another parameter curves that are able to approximate a dense series of points.);
Petersen and Liu teaches:
Identifying a path as a freeform line in a user interface having a first anchor point and a second anchor point (Liu [Pg 3 Par 8] The present invention is further configured to: in the step S1, based on the anchor point measuring position of each camera on one time, the anchor point optimal pose of the last moment; measuring the position of the anchor point at the current time; estimating the optimal predicted position of the anchor point at the current time; combining the image feature points and feature descriptors of all the camera images at the current time; respectively the first visual map point tracked at the time of the same camera at the same time; obtaining the second visual map point and the second position on the current image of each camera at the current time; calculating the first optimal rotation of the anchor point at the current time.) (Peterson [0008] In some examples, a user can perform a tracing operation using an input device (e.g., a pointing device such as a pen, a touch interface such as a touchscreen or touchpad, a mouse, or other input device) to trace a path over or proximate to an edge depicted in the raster image displayed on the graphical user interface.);
And calculating a resultant curve … … based on the path, the first and second anchor points, and the selected reference points of the reference curve (Peterson [0021] In some implementations, a vector drawing segment includes a cubic Bézier segment (e.g. a single cubic curve defined by four control points), a cubic Bézier curve (e.g., one or more connected cubic Bézier segments), a Bézier path (e.g., a combination of Bézier curves and straight lines), or the like. A Bézier curve refers to a parametric curve used to model smooth curves. A Bézier curve includes one or more cubic Bézier segments, where each Bézier segment is defined by multiple points (e.g., a start point, an end point, and two control points). In some examples, a Bézier curve can include Bézier segments defined for any degree (e.g., linear, quadratic, cubic, etc.). While Bézier segments and curves are used herein as examples of vector drawing segments, the image conversion systems and techniques described herein may additionally or alternatively use other forms of parametric segments and curves as vector drawing segments, such as Hermite curves, B-splines, non-uniform rational basis splines, Kappa-curves, Catmull-Rom splines, any combination thereof, and/or another parameter curves that are able to approximate a dense series of points.).
Jaklic teaches:
Offset from the path (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.).
Offset from the reference curve (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, with Liu. Having anchor positions, as in Liu, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for fixed positions. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, having certain anchor positions, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 14:
Peterson, Bedi, Jaklic and Liu teach:
The system as described in claim 13,
wherein the resultant curve extends the reference curve (Peterson [0007] An image conversion system and related techniques are described herein that perform content aware image conversion (e.g., to convert a raster image to a vector drawing). In some examples, an edge detection process is performed on the visible portion of a raster image. An edge map can be generated based on the results of edge detection. In some cases, the edge map includes digital representation of the edges in the raster image, such as a bitmap. The edge map can be used to determine one or more edges in the raster image that correspond to a user interaction with a graphical user interface displaying the raster image. [0059] The lines shown in FIG. 5A as extending from the input position 522 represent an illustrative example of a search pattern the input-to-edge mapping engine 204 can use to determine an edge point. For example, a vector 524 (or line) extending from the last edge point on the curve (e.g., the edge point at location (4, 4) overlapping with the previous input position 520) to the current input position 522 can be determined. A vector 526 (or line) extending from the current input position 522 relative to the vector 524 can also be determined. For example, as shown in FIG. 5A, a vector 526 perpendicular to the vector 524 is determined for use as a search pattern in addition to the vector 524. In some cases, more vectors can be determined and used as the search pattern, such as eight vectors emanating from the current input position 522 and separated by 45 degree angles.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, with Liu. Having anchor positions, as in Liu, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for fixed positions. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, having certain anchor positions, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 15:
Peterson, Bedi, Jaklic and Liu teach:
The system as described in claim 13,
wherein the resultant curve replaces the path in the user interface (Peterson [0032] In some examples, the edge detection engine 202 generates an edge map of the raster image 201 using the results of the edge detection. The edge map is a digital representation of the one or more detected edges of the raster image 201. The edge map can be used (e.g., by the input-to-edge mapping engine 204) to determine where edges are detected in the raster image 201.);
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, with Liu. Having anchor positions, as in Liu, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for fixed positions. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, having certain anchor positions, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 19:
Peterson teaches:
One or more computer-readable storage media storing instructions that, responsive to execution by a processing device, causes the processing device to perform operations comprising (Peterson [0025] The software and/or firmware can include one or more instructions stored on a computer-readable storage medium and executable by one or more processors of the computing device implementing the image conversion system 200.):
calculating a resultant curve based on a location of the path in the user interface and a trajectory the reference curve in the user interface (Peterson [0021] In some implementations, a vector drawing segment includes a cubic Bézier segment (e.g. a single cubic curve defined by four control points), a cubic Bézier curve (e.g., one or more connected cubic Bézier segments), a Bézier path (e.g., a combination of Bézier curves and straight lines), or the like. A Bézier curve refers to a parametric curve used to model smooth curves. A Bézier curve includes one or more cubic Bézier segments, where each Bézier segment is defined by multiple points (e.g., a start point, an end point, and two control points). In some examples, a Bézier curve can include Bézier segments defined for any degree (e.g., linear, quadratic, cubic, etc.). While Bézier segments and curves are used herein as examples of vector drawing segments, the image conversion systems and techniques described herein may additionally or alternatively use other forms of parametric segments and curves as vector drawing segments, such as Hermite curves, B-splines, non-uniform rational basis splines, Kappa-curves, Catmull-Rom splines, any combination thereof, and/or another parameter curves that are able to approximate a dense series of points.);
and outputting the resultant curve in the user interface (Peterson [0007] An image conversion system and related techniques are described herein that perform content aware image conversion (e.g., to convert a raster image to a vector drawing). In some examples, an edge detection process is performed on the visible portion of a raster image. An edge map can be generated based on the results of edge detection. In some cases, the edge map includes digital representation of the edges in the raster image, such as a bitmap. The edge map can be used to determine one or more edges in the raster image that correspond to a user interaction with a graphical user interface displaying the raster image.).
Peterson alone fails to teach:
identifying a path as input via the user interface
selecting a reference curve from the one or more vector paths displayed in the user interface
Bedi and Peterson together teach:
selecting a reference curve from the one or more vector paths displayed in the user interface (Bedi [0026] To examine the shape, the selection 407a, encompassing the object 405a, is reduced to its component edges (also referred to as an “edge map”) by combining multiple points in the selection 407a using Bézier curve equations.); (Peterson [0056] For example, as described previously, a user can select an edge tracing option and can operate an input device to move a cursor displayed on the graphical user interface along a path on or proximate to an edge of a raster image. As the user moves the cursor using the input device, the image conversion system 200 or device or application operating the image conversion system can track the movement of the cursor relative to the edge for the tracing operation, and can save (at block 410) validated edge points for use in generating one or more vector drawing segments for the tracing operation.);
Peterson and Liu teaches:
identifying a path as input via the user interface (Liu [Pg 3 Par 8] The present invention is further configured to: in the step S1, based on the anchor point measuring position of each camera on one time, the anchor point optimal pose of the last moment; measuring the position of the anchor point at the current time; estimating the optimal predicted position of the anchor point at the current time; combining the image feature points and feature descriptors of all the camera images at the current time; respectively the first visual map point tracked at the time of the same camera at the same time; obtaining the second visual map point and the second position on the current image of each camera at the current time; calculating the first optimal rotation of the anchor point at the current time. [0008] In some examples, a user can perform a tracing operation using an input device (e.g., a pointing device such as a pen, a touch interface such as a touchscreen or touchpad, a mouse, or other input device) to trace a path over or proximate to an edge depicted in the raster image displayed on the graphical user interface.);
Offset from the path (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.).
Offset from the reference curve (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, with Liu. Having anchor positions, as in Liu, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for fixed positions. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, having certain anchor positions, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Liu et al. (CN 113763481), Jaklic et al. (US 10620531) and Bagachi et al. (US 20180255428).
Regarding claim 5:
Peterson, Bedi, and Liu teach:
The method as described in claim 4,
Peterson, Bedi, and Liu fail to teach:
wherein selecting the reference points along the reference curve comprises: receiving the first anchor point and the second anchor point; finding a first reference point nearest the first anchor point; finding a second reference point nearest the second anchor point; defining a first distance between the first anchor point and the first reference point; and defining a second distance between the second anchor point and the second reference point.
Bagachi teaches:
wherein selecting the reference points along the reference curve comprises: receiving the first anchor point and the second anchor point; finding a first reference point nearest the first anchor point; finding a second reference point nearest the second anchor point; defining a first distance between the first anchor point and the first reference point; and defining a second distance between the second anchor point and the second reference point (Bagachi [0062] FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary process for creating a geo-fence using system 200 according to an embodiment described herein. The computer-implemented method for creating a geo-fence around a route includes collecting and storing route information for one or more mobile devices; analyzing the route information for the one or more mobile devices to determine optimal time and route for making that journey; and creating the geo-fence around a route to be monitored based on the route information for the optimum route. Creating the geo-fence around a route to be monitored further includes choosing a set of points along the route to be monitored; sampling at least two points from the set of points to form a parameterized curve; calculating parameterized points along the parameterized curve to act as anchor points for perpendiculars along the curve; calculating two points along each perpendicular at a predetermined distance from the route on either direction; and joining end points of the perpendiculars sequentially to form a polygon creating the automatic geo-fence for the route to be monitored.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, Jaklic, and Liu with Bagachi. Finding distances between points, as in Bagachi, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, Jaklic, and Liu teachings by allowing for ways to modify data based on distance. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, finding distances between points, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6:
Peterson, Liu, and Bagachi teach:
The method as described in claim 5,
wherein the calculating the resultant curve includes calculating, the resultant curve based on the first distance, the second distance, the first reference point, and the second reference point (Bagachi [0062] FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary process for creating a geo-fence using system 200 according to an embodiment described herein. The computer-implemented method for creating a geo-fence around a route includes collecting and storing route information for one or more mobile devices; analyzing the route information for the one or more mobile devices to determine optimal time and route for making that journey; and creating the geo-fence around a route to be monitored based on the route information for the optimum route. Creating the geo-fence around a route to be monitored further includes choosing a set of points along the route to be monitored; sampling at least two points from the set of points to form a parameterized curve; calculating parameterized points along the parameterized curve to act as anchor points for perpendiculars along the curve; calculating two points along each perpendicular at a predetermined distance from the route on either direction; and joining end points of the perpendiculars sequentially to form a polygon creating the automatic geo-fence for the route to be monitored.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson Peterson, Bedi, Jaklic, and Liu with Bagachi. Finding distances between points, as in Bagachi, would benefit the Peterson Peterson, Bedi, Jaklic, and Liu teachings by allowing for ways to modify data based on distance. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, finding distances between points, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Jaklic et al. (US 10620531) and Fan (CN 106313007).
Regarding claim 10:
Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teach:
The method as described in claim 8,
Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic fail to teach:
wherein the refining the resultant curve includes applying a corner handling algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve.
Fan teaches:
wherein refining the resultant curve comprises applying a corner handling algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve (Fan [Pg 4 Par 5] the second straight line and the straight line connected at the corner smoothing algorithm is a smoothing process, input smoothing distance, automatically calculating the two side connecting point of intersection and the centre by the system, in order to make the curve smooth transition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic and Fan. Applying corner handling , as in Fan, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, applying a corner handling algorithm, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Jaklic et al. (US 10620531), and Bates et al. (WO 2009111139).
Regarding claim 11:
Peterson, Bedi and Jaklic teach:
The method as described in claim 8,
Peterson, Bedi and Jaklic fail to teach:
wherein refining the resultant curve includes applying a nearest neighbor curve refining algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve.
Bates teaches:
wherein refining the resultant curve comprises applying a nearest neighbor curve refining algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve (Bates [Claim 1] generating resulting data using a pure curve resolution method; and analyzing the resulting data by a nearest neighbor refinement method to determine the nearest-neighbor coordination number for the components of the composition.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic and Bates. Applying a nearest neighbor curve refining algorithm, as in Bates, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, applying a nearest neighbor curve refining algorithm to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Jaklic et al. (US 10620531), Bates et al. (WO 2009111139), and Fan et al. (CN 106313007).
Regarding claim 12:
Peterson, Jaklic, and Bates teach:
The method as described in claim 11,
Peterson, Jaklic, and Bates fail to teach:
wherein refining the resultant curve further includes applying an intersection detection algorithm to the refined resultant curve to create a further refined resultant curve.
Fan teaches:
wherein refining the resultant curve further comprises applying an intersection detection algorithm to the refined resultant curve to create a further refined resultant curve (Fan [Pg 4 Par 5] the second straight line and the straight line connected at the corner smoothing algorithm is a smoothing process, input smoothing distance, automatically calculating the two side connecting point of intersection and the centre by the system, in order to make the curve smooth transition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, and Bates with Fan. Using intersection detection, as in Fan, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, and Bates teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, Using intersection detection to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213) Liu et al. (CN 113763481), Jaklic et al. (US 10620531), and Fan et al (CN 106313007).
Regarding claim 16:
Peterson and Liu teach:
The system as described in claim 13,
Peterson and Liu fail to teach:
Wherein the operations further comprise applying a corner handling algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve.
Fan teaches:
Wherein the operations further comprise applying a corner handling algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve. (Fan [Pg 4 Par 5] the second straight line and the straight line connected at the corner smoothing algorithm is a smoothing process, input smoothing distance, automatically calculating the two side connecting point of intersection and the centre by the system, in order to make the curve smooth transition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, and Liu with Fan. Applying corner handling, as in Fan, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, and Liu teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, applying a corner handling algorithm, to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 20:
Peterson and Liu teach:
The one or more computer-readable storage media as described in claim 19,
Peterson and Liu fail to teach:
wherein the operations further comprise: refining the resultant curve to remove an unintentional loop artifact by applying one or more curve refining algorithms, wherein the one or more curve refining algorithms comprise a corner handling algorithm, a nearest neighbor algorithm, and an intersection detection algorithm.
Jaklic and Fan teach:
wherein the operations further comprise: refining the resultant curve to remove an unintentional loop artifact by applying one or more curve refining algorithms, wherein the one or more curve refining algorithms comprise a corner handling algorithm, a nearest neighbor algorithm, and an intersection detection algorithm (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3. [0124] In some embodiments, step 1216 includes forming a second discretized segmentation of a second parametrized curve, wherein the second parametrized curve is a parallel translation of the parametrized curve. In some embodiments, step 1216 includes verifying that no artifacts are present in the discretized segmentation of the parametrized curve, wherein the artifacts comprise a cusp or an intersection. In some embodiments, step 1216 includes identifying an artifact in the discretized segmentation of the parametrized curve and removing a parameter value within the artifact.) (Fan [Pg 4 Par 5] the second straight line and the straight line connected at the corner smoothing algorithm is a smoothing process, input smoothing distance, automatically calculating the two side connecting point of intersection and the centre by the system, in order to make the curve smooth transition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson and Liu with Jaklic and Fan. Refining a curve, as in Jaklic and Fan, would benefit the Peterson and Liu teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, refining a curve, to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Liu et al. (CN 113763481), Jaklic et al. (US 10620531), and Bates et al. (WO 2009111139).
Regarding claim 17:
Peterson, Bedi and Liu teach:
The system as described in claim 13,
Peterson, Bedi and Liu fail to teach:
Wherein the operations further comprise applying a nearest neighbor algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve.
Bates teaches:
Wherein the operations further comprise applying a nearest neighbor algorithm to the resultant curve to create a refined resultant curve. (Bates [Claim 1] generating resulting data using a pure curve resolution method; and analyzing the resulting data by a nearest neighbor refinement method to determine the nearest-neighbor coordination number for the components of the composition.).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, and Liu with Bates. Applying a nearest neighbor curve refining algorithm, as in Bates, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, and Liu teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, applying a nearest neighbor curve refining algorithm to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peterson et al. (US 10930033) in view of Bedi et al. (US 10152213), Liu et al. (CN 113763481), Bates et al. (WO 2009111139), and Fan et al (CN 106313007).
Regarding claim 18:
Peterson, Bedi, Liu, and Bates teach:
The system as described in claim 17,
Peterson, Bedi, Liu, and Bates fail to teach:
Wherein the operations further comprise applying an intersection detection algorithm to the refined resultant curve to create a further refined resultant curve.
Fan teaches:
Wherein the operations further comprise applying an intersection detection algorithm to the refined resultant curve to create a further refined resultant curve. (Fan [Pg 4 Par 5] the second straight line and the straight line connected at the corner smoothing algorithm is a smoothing process, input smoothing distance, automatically calculating the two side connecting point of intersection and the centre by the system, in order to make the curve smooth transition).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, bates and Liu, with Fan. Using intersection detection, as in Fan, would benefit the Peterson, Bedi, and Jaklic, bates and Liu, teachings by allowing for ways to create a better curve. Additionally, this is the application of a known technique, Using intersection detection to yield predictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: “This feature did not receive a rejection. In the Office Action, the Examiner asserts "receiving, by a processing device, a selection of a reference curve from one or more vector paths displayed in a user interface." Office Action, p. 3. [sic]. This feature is not taught or suggested by the references of record.”
“In rejecting this feature, the Office asserts Bedi. Office Action, p. 5. In short, the Office asserts Bedi to generate an edge map to form a vector. This vector is then also asserted along with a path of Peterson to form a resultant curve. However, this combination destroys the intent behind both references. If the vector of Bedi is formed, then what is the purpose of the path or the resultant curve? Further, at no point is the "location of the path in the user interface" applied in this scenario. None of the other references, alone or in combination, correct this defect. For at least these reasons, this feature is not taught or suggested by the asserted references.”
However, the applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive because: the rejection of claim 1 has been updated to include a portion from Peterson “(Peterson [0089] In examples where a vector drawing segment 654 is made up of multiple Bézier curves, the image conversion system 200 can provide vector controls 656 for each Bézier curve. In some implementations, the image conversion system 200 can hide the vector controls 656 from display the graphical user interface 642 until the user selects the vector drawing segment 654 and/or selects an option to show the vector controls 656.)”
Peterson talks about selection a vector drawing segment [0089].
In regards to the amendments, Jaklic has also been incorporated to teach the resultant curve to be at an offset. (Jaklic [0065] In some embodiment, the discretized segmentation of a parallel offset curve may have self-intersecting points forming loop artifacts, such as illustrated with loops 450-1, 450-2, 450-3, 450-4, and 450-5 (hereinafter, collectively referred to as “loops 450”) for discretized segmentation 402-3.)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENIS VASILIY MINKO whose telephone number is (571)270-5226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-6:00 EST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/DENIS VASILIY MINKO/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612