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 Objections
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: ”the first room layout” and “the second room layout map” in the fusing step should read “the updated first room layout map” and “the updated second room layout map”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the room plane map” in line 15 should read “the room layout map”, “the target planes” at lines 17-18 should read “the at least one target plane” and “the updated first room plane map” in line 19 should read “the updated first room layout map”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the target planes” at lines 2, 4 and 14 should read “the at least one target plane”, “the target plane” at lines 5-6, 8-9 and 11 should read “the at least one target plane”, “the room plane map” in line 12 should read “the room layout map” and “the updated first room plane map” in line 3 should read “the updated first room layout map”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101. the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer readable storage medium” encompasses a signal and signals are not statutory. Specification as filed paras 0161-0162 discloses “a computer readable storage medium”. Specification paras 0161-0162 however do not exclude “a computer readable storage medium” from being a signal. Examiner suggests amending claim 15 as “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium—” in-order to make the claim statutory under 35. U.S.C 101. Claims 16-20 depends from claim 15, therefore they are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 15 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 15 recites “A computer readable storage medium, wherein the computer readable storage medium has computer execution instructions stored therein, and a processor,----“. The above recital in claim 15 renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear as to how a computer readable storage medium can have a processor? i.e “and a processor” . Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 16-20 depends from claim 15, therefore they are rejected.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recites the limitation "the same object" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 depends directly or indirectly on claims 2, 9 and 16, therefore they are rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunkel et al., (US12033355) hereafter Gunkel. (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitations are shown/disclosed in multiple figs/embodiments (i.e figs 2, 3, 7a and 7b))
1. Regarding claim 1, Gunkel discloses a method (figs 2,3, 7a-7b, col 9 lines 18-37, col 11 lines 33 through col 12 lines 33, shows and discloses a method) for room layout, comprising:
collecting a current frame RGB image (fig 2 shows the current RGB frame), and acquiring a depth map corresponding to the current frame RGB image (fig 2 shows RGB + Depth i.e acquiring a depth map corresponding to the current frame RGB image) and pose information of a head mounted device (fig 2 shows CMD and col 11 lines 47-57 pose information of a head mounted device);
detecting and determining at least one object in the collected current frame RGB image (fig 2, col 11 lines 33-57, col 12 lines 7-21 shows and discloses “Detect HMD” and also discloses “the object is a person wearing the head mounted display (i.e detecting and the object wearing the HMD in the current RGB frame) meeting the limitations of detecting and determining at least one object in the collected current frame RGB image, examiner notes that the specifics of “at least one object” are not required by the current claim); and
associating the at least one object in the current frame RGB image, the depth image and the pose information with a room layout map frame RGB image for enabling a user to calibrate and create a rendering based on the room layout map corresponding to the current frame RGB image (fig 2 shows the associating the at least one object in the current frame RGB image (fig 2 shows the current RGB image, the depth image and the pose information with a room layout map (col 2 lines 44-67, col 11 lines 48 through col 12 lines 6 discloses creating a local 3D model of the room and “the physical space” meeting the limitations of generating a room layout map) pose”).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
687
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As seen above in fig 2, a current RGB frame is shown and disclosed. Fig 2 however does not show corresponding to a previous frame RGB image.
Fig 3, col 13 lines 20-22 shows and discloses (2x RGB image i.e two RGB images)
PNG
media_image2.png
425
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
meeting the limitations of corresponding to a previous RGB frame and also the current RGB frame). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs (i.e Figs 2 and 3) are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be a high speed and advantageous image processing method/system at col 10 lines 64 through col 11 lines 8.
2. Claim 8 is a corresponding electronic device claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Gunkel shows a device/apparatus in fig 9, col 22 lines 9-67 comprising: a processor and a memory; the memory for storing computer execution instructions; the processor executing the computer execution instructions stored in the memory to cause the processor to implement a method for room layout as claimed in claim 8.
3. Claim 15 is a corresponding computer readable storage medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Gunkel shows the computer readable storage medium in fig 8, col 22 lines 9-67.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gunkel in view of NPL2 (Expandable YOLO: 3D Object Detection from RGB-D Images, Masahiro Takahashi et al., ResearchGate, Oct 2020, Pages 1-6) hereafter NPL2.
4. Regarding claim 2 as best understood by the examiner, Gunkel discloses the method of claim 1. As seen in claim 1 and from the disclosure, Gunkel discloses detecting the object in the RGB frame image. Gunkel however is silent and fails to disclose, wherein detecting and determining at least one object in the collected current frame RGB image comprises: detecting and obtaining a bounding box of at least one object in the current frame RBG image using a real-time fast target detecting method; wherein the same object corresponds to at least one bounding box, and each of the at least one object is of a plane type or a cuboid type.
NPL2 discloses wherein detecting and determining at least one object in the collected current frame RGB image comprises: detecting and obtaining a bounding box of at least one object in the current frame RBG image using a real-time fast target detecting method; wherein the same object corresponds to at least one bounding box, and each of the at least one object is of a plane type (Figs 7-8, page 5 shows and discloses the proposed model (using (YOLO) a real-time fast target detection method) can detect two-dimensional objects (i.e at least one object is 2D planar object (i.e plane type)), shows at least one bounding box (i.e red bounding boxes) and outputs one person (i.e i.e the same person using the purple bounding box) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of “at least one object, same object, bounding boxes and plane type are not required by the current claim, Examiner also notes that due to the recital of “or” only one is required to be met) or
5. Claim 9 is s corresponding device claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
6. Claim 16 is a corresponding computer readable storage claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 10-14 and 17-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677