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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in CN on 08 Nov 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the PCT/CN2023/130528 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. NOTE: PCT/CN2023/130528 is not a foreign application.
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 1 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 1 recites “one or more circuits to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or more edge pixels of the object to be calculated based, at least in part, on one or more edge pixels within one or more columns of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel.”. The above recital of the claim functional limitations with too many “or” renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of explanation of the indefiniteness in the claim examiner is considering one possible scenario “one or more circuits to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one of the object to be calculated based, at least in part, on one edge pixel within one of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel” renders the claim indefinite. How it is possible to calculate the minimum distance in one column of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels if only one edge pixel is considered in the prior recital “one
Claim 8 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 8 recites “causing a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or more edge pixels of the object to be calculated based, at least in part, on one or more edge pixels within one or more columns of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel.”. The above recital of the claim functional limitations with too many “or” renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of explanation of the indefiniteness in the claim examiner is considering one possible scenario “causing a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one of the object to be calculated based, at least in part, on one edge pixel within one of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel” renders the claim indefinite. How it is possible to calculate the minimum distance in one column of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels if only one edge pixel is considered in the prior recital “one
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 “one or more processors to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or more edge pixels of the object to be calculated based, at least in part, on one or more edge pixels within one or more columns of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel.”. The above recital of the claim functional limitations with too many “or” renders the claim indefinite. For the purpose of explanation of the indefiniteness in the claim examiner is considering one possible scenario “one or more processors to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one of the object to be calculated based, at least in part, on one edge pixel within one of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel” renders the claim indefinite. How it is possible to calculate the minimum distance in one column of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels if only one edge pixel is considered in the prior recital “one
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recites the limitation "the same row of pixels" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 depends directly or indirectly on claims 1, 8 and 15, therefore they are rejected.
Claim 1 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 1 recites the limitation one or more circuits to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or more edge pixels of the object “to be calculated” in lines 1- 2. It is unclear as to whether the one or more circuits are configured to calculate a minimum distance (i.e to actually calculate in the present tense) or the one or more circuits are to cause a minimum distance to be calculated? (i.e to be calculated in future tense) where there is no actual calculation of a minimum distance taking place. Examiner suggests amending the claims to positively recite “calculating” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claims definite. Claims 2-7 depends directly or indirectly on claim 1, therefore they are rejected.
In claims 3 and 5 the recital of “to be generated” also renders the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending to “generating” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claims definite.
In claim 4 the recital of “to be identified’ also renders the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending to “identifying” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claims definite.
Claim 8 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 8 recites the limitation causing a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or more edge pixels of the object “to be calculated” in lines 1- 2. It is unclear as to whether the method is actually calculating a minimum distance (i.e to actually calculate in the present tense) or causing a minimum distance to be calculated? (i.e to be calculated in future tense) where there is no actual calculation/calculating of a minimum distance taking place. Examiner suggests amending the claims to positively recite “calculating” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claims definite. Claims 9-14 depends directly or indirectly on claim 8, therefore they are rejected.
In claim 10 the recital of “to be generated” also renders the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending to “generating” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claims definite.
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 the limitation one or more processors to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or more edge pixels of the object “to be calculated” in lines 1- 2. It is unclear as to whether the one or more processors are configured to actually calculating a minimum distance (i.e to actually calculate in the present tense) or cause a minimum distance to be calculated? (i.e to be calculated in future tense) where there is no actual calculation/calculating of a minimum distance taking place. Examiner suggests amending the claims to positively recite “calculating” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claims definite. Claims 16-20 depends directly or indirectly on claim 15, therefore they are rejected.
In claim 19 the recital of “to be calculated” also renders the claim indefinite. Examiner suggests amending to “calculating” in order to overcome the indefiniteness and make the claim definite.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “one or more circuits” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “one or more circuits” in claims 1-7. See MPEP 2181.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 1-13, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (Milne et al. (US9251607) hereafter Milne.
1. Regarding claim 1, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses a processor (figs 1-2, 5 and 7 shows and discloses a processor 702 performing the method for calculating a minimum distance, also see cols 7 lines 53 through col 8 lines 36, col 11 lines 5 through col 12 lines 13 and col 13 lines 35 through col 14 lines 7) comprising:
one or more circuits (fig 7 shows the one or more circuits in the processor, examiner notes that due to the recital of one or more only one is required by the claim) to cause a minimum distance between a first pixel within an object and one or (step 506 fig 5 discloses determine distance of pixel (i.e the first pixel) from 0 edge) of the bounding box (i.e the object), For example, the vertex shader 112 can find the minimum distance between a vertex of a pixel within the bounding box to the zero edge of the bounding box, col 11 lines 24-27 describes above limitations of calculating a minimum distance) based, at least in part, on one or or more columns of pixels between two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel
PNG
media_image1.png
519
827
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
432
443
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(i.e the columns of the pixels between two edge pixels within the same row of the pixels as the first pixel as seen in fig 2 meeting the above claim limitations, also see col 7 lines 57 through col 8 lines 36 and col 11 lines 13-27 for the explanation of the above limitations).
2. Regarding claim 2, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are to limit calculations of distances from the first pixel to the edge pixels within the columns between the two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel (figs 2, 5 shows and discloses wherein the one or more circuits are to limit calculations of distances from the first pixel to the edge pixels within the columns between the two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel, also see col 7 lines 57 through col 8 lines 36 and col 11 lines 13-27 for the explanation of the above limitations).
3. Regarding claim 3, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are to cause a distance transform to be generated based, at least in part, on the minimum distance (figs 2, 5, col 11 lines 5 through 61 shows and disclose distance transform to be generated as seen in table 1, examiner notes that the specifics of distance transform are not required by the current claim).
4. Regarding claim 4, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are to cause edge pixels of the object to be identified in parallel (figs 2, 5 and col 11 lines 13 -23 discloses finding the distance from the zero edge to the two edges of the line that lay parallel to the zero edge meeting the limitations of identifying the two edges (pixels) in parallel meeting the claim limitations).
5. Regarding claim 5, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are to cause a data structure identifying edge pixels of the object to be generated (figs 2, 5 and col 7 lines 53 through col 8 lines 36, col 11 lines 5 through col 12 lines 43 shows and discloses a pixel map (i.e data structure) identifying the edge pixels of the object meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the data structure are not required by the current claim).
6. Regarding claim 6, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the processor of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are to perform a binary search to identify the two edge pixels of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel (figs 2, 5 and col 11 lines 48-62 discloses assigning the membership values of 1 and 0 (i.e the binary search) to identify the two edge pixels (i.e the zero edge and the central region edge) of the object within the same row of pixels as the first pixel meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a binary search are not required by the current claim).
7. Regarding claim 7, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses processor of claim 1, wherein an image in which the first pixel is located is a two-dimensional image (fig 2 shows wherein an image in which the first pixel is located is a two-dimensional image).
8. Claim 8 is a corresponding method claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Milne shows a method in fig 5.
9. Claim 9 is a corresponding method claim of claim 2. See the explanation of claim 2.
10. Claim 10 is a corresponding method claim of claim 3. See the explanation of claim 3.
11. Claim 11 is a corresponding method claim of claim 4. See the explanation of claim 4.
12. Claim 12 is a corresponding method claim of claim 5. See the explanation of claim 5.
13. Regarding claim 13, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the method of claim 8, wherein calculating the minimum distance between the first pixel and the one or more edge pixels of the object is part of a two-dimensional search to identify the minimum distance (figs 2, 5 col 11 lines 24-61 shows and discloses wherein calculating the minimum distance between the first pixel and the one or more edge pixels of the object is part of a two-dimensional search (i.e the bounding box 202) to identify the minimum distance meeting the above claim limitations. Examiner notes that the specifics of a two-dimensional search are not required by the current claim).
14. Claim 15 is a corresponding system claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Milne shows and discloses a system comprising one or more processors 702 in figs 1 and 7.
15. Claim 16 is a corresponding system claim of claim 2. See the explanation of claim 2.
16. Regarding claim 18, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors comprise a central processing unit (CPU) that is to cause a graphics processing unit (GPU) to calculate the minimum distance (col 5 lines 26-45, col 11 lines 24-27 discloses wherein the one or more processors comprise a central processing unit (CPU) that is to cause a graphics processing unit (GPU) to calculate the minimum distance).
17. Regarding claim 19, as best understood by the examiner, Milne discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are to cause minimum distances from respective non-edge pixels to edge pixels of the object to be calculated in parallel (figs 2, 5 and col 11 lines 13 -61 discloses the one or more processors are to cause minimum distances from respective non-edge pixels (non-edge pixels within the shaded region (central region) in the bounding box are non-edge pixels) to edge pixels (pixels on the boundary region of the bounding box are edge pixels) the object to be calculated in parallel meeting the claim limitations).
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.
Claim 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne in view of Pfister et al. (US20080260238) hereafter Pfister.
18. Regarding claim 14, Milne discloses the method of claim 8, wherein the first pixel is located in a 2D image as seen in fig 2. Milne is silent and however fails to disclose a three-dimensional image.
Pfister discloses a three-dimensional image in fig 2 para 0042. Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Milne and Pfister are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a reduced error processing method/system in para 0012. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Pfister in the method of Milne to obtain the invention as specified in claim 14.
19. Regarding claim 20, Milne discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are to cause a data structure identifying edge pixels of the object (figs 2, 5 and col 7 lines 53 through col 8 lines 36, col 11 lines 5 through col 12 lines 43 shows and discloses a pixel map (i.e data structure) identifying the edge pixels of the object meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the data structure are not required by the current claim)
Pfister discloses and shows the object image stored in a shared graphics processing unit (GPU) memory 106 and in para 0062. Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Milne and Pfister are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a reduced error processing method/system in para 0012. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Pfister in the system of Milne to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milne in view of
KUBOTA et al., (US20200184593) hereafter KUBOTA.
20. Regarding claim 17, Milne discloses the system of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are to perform the processing as seen in figs 1, 2, 5 and 7.
Milne shows process in the pixels image rows and columns as seen in fig 2. Milne is silent and however fails to disclose to perform the processing one thread per row of an image in which the first pixel is located to identify edge pixels of each row of the image in parallel.
KUBOTA discloses performing the processing one thread per row of an image in which the first pixel is located to identify edge pixels of each row of the image in parallel (figs 1-5, and paras 0007, 0034, 0043, 0071-0074 shows and discloses performing the processing one thread per row of an image in which the first pixel is located to identify edge pixels (boundary pixels) of each row of the image in parallel). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, Milne and KUBOTA are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an advantageous processing system at para 0007-0008. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of KUBOTA in the system of Milne to obtain the invention as specified in claim 17.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
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