Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the objection to the abstract, the claims, and most of the 112 rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
112a
Applicant argues:
Applicant respectfully submits those skilled in the art would clearly understand what the processing steps are and what the filter parameters are, based on the written description.
Examiner responds:
Applicant is not addressing the correct issue. While one of ordinary skill knows what a filter parameter is, Applicant needs to 1) show possession of particular parameters (e.g., which values are used for which parameters and 2) limit the claim to steps, not results. For example, the claim might recite setting X parameter to Y value in a known type of filter.
Applicant argues:
The term "defective pixels" is defined in 0045 of the specification as follows.
The pixel group 40a also includes defective pixels 48a that are pixels having distance values corresponding to objects, grounds, noises belonging to other pixel groups, that is, pixels having distance values not falling within the distance interval D1.
Examiner responds:
MPEP 2173.05(a)(III) is titled “terms used contrary to their ordinary meaning must be clearly redefined in the written description.” Traditionally, defective means that something fails to function. This statement from the specification is insufficient to redefine the term. Applicant’s proposed interpretation does not resolve the issue that this is unlimited functional claiming.
112b
Applicant argues:
The amended claim 1 recites "wherein the input interface is communicatively connected to an image capture device".
Examiner responds:
While this is helpful, it is insufficient. Is the input interface a button, a user interface, etc.?
Applicant argues:
This limitation is intended to clarify the preceding part of the same paragraph "divide the first distance image into a plurality of pixel groups based on the distance values of the pixels". When the pixels of the first distance image are divided into the pixel groups, pixels of a pixel group may have distance values close to each other (i.e., distance values falling under a distance interval), or distance values spread from each other (i.e., distance values not falling under a distance interval). Thus, the limitation "such that ..." is necessary for defining "pixel groups".
Examiner responds:
The examiner appreciates the explanation and understands Applicant’s intent. However, the language used is not precise enough for U.S. patent law.
Applicant argues:
The pixel groups are processed to reduce noises therein.
Examiner responds:
This does not resolve the question.
Applicant argues:
For example, paragraph 0016 reads, "The representative distance value may be, e.g., a minimum, maximum, or average of the distance values of the pixels belonging to the pixel group."
Examiner responds:
This does not resolve the question.
Applicant argues:
Therefore, claims 2 and 5 are definite.
Examiner responds:
U.S. patent practice does not import limitations from the specification.
Applicant argues:
Thus, McManus does not disclose nor suggest "divide(ing) the first distance image into a plurality of pixel groups based on the distance values of the pixels" of the amended claims 1 and 8.
Examiner responds:
As quoted, McManus teaches “disregards features that are extracted in quadrants believed to belong to foreground objects.” Foreground objects are closer, i.e., they have been grouped as foreground because they are a smaller distance. McManus’s extracting and disregarding each teach the claimed dividing.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR REDUCING NOISE IN DISTANCE IMAGE BY DIVIDING PIXELS ACCORDING TO DISTANCE INTERVALS.
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 the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 (all claims) 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.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “processes the plurality of pixel groups using a plurality of filter parameters,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because the claim does not specify what the processing steps are or what the filter parameters are. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 4 recites “to interpolate defective pixels,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because the claim has not specified how pixels are identified as defective. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Claim 4 recites “processed by the interpolation parameter,” but this is unlimited functional claiming because the claim has not specified what the parameter is. MPEP 2173.05(g).
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 (all claims) are 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 that the input interface is configured to acquire the first distance image (as opposed to the image capture device), but this conflicts with the plain meaning of “input interface.” The examiner notes that “image capture device” is likely also too broad whereas a lidar is a device that can acquire a distance image.
Claim 1 recites the input interface and the processor being “configured to” take actions, but the scope of this is unclear as to whether these steps need to be performed or that the device only needs to be capable of. See, e.g., In re Blue Buffalo (Fed. Cir. January 14, 2026, non-precedential, slip opinion retrieved from https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1611.OPINION.1-14-2026_2632686.pdf
Claim 1 recites an “input interface,” but this is new terminology that is not defined by the specification (e.g., specification [0015] recites “or the like”). MPEP 2173.05(a). In particular, it is unclear if this interface is intended to be a camera, a network connection or other.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “each of the plurality of pixels being a distance value,” but it is unclear if the intent is that all of the pixel are the same distance (a literal reading), or if the pixels are each different values (because they are in different places)
Claims 1 and 8 recite “respectively,” but the plain meaning of this word is to compare two lists, but the claim does not recite two lists.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “such that each of the plurality of pixel groups includes pixels having distance values falling within one of a plurality of distance intervals different from each other.” However, it is not apparent how any groups of pixels could not meet this claim language. As the boundaries of this limitation are not apparent, this limitation is indefinite.
Claims 1 and 8 recite “to reduce noises in the plurality of pixel groups,” but it is unclear if this is an intended use or if it a requirement (i.e., if the noises are not reduced, the claim is not met).
Claims 2 and 5 recite “representative,” but this is subjective. MPEP 2173.05(b)(IV). One option to overcome this rejection is to name an objective relationship, e.g., “is”.
Claims 2 recites “wherein the plurality of filter parameters are set such that noise reduction performance of the at least one processor decreases as the representative distance value of the pixel group increases,” but it is not clear whether a given filter parameter would have this impact because the claim does not specify which performance metric is at issue (e.g., accuracy, speed, efficiency, cost).
Claims 2 recites “that noise reduction performance of the at least one processor decreases,” but this is unclear because processor performance (as opposed to program performance) is not a function of the instructions being executed.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-8 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US20150356357A1 (“McManus”).
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
an input interface and at least one processor; (McManus, Fig. 1)
wherein the input interface is communicatively couple to an image capture device, and configured to acquire a first distance image including a plurality of pixels, each of the plurality of pixels being a distance value from the image capture device to a point of an object; (McManus, [0081] “In particular embodiments may utilise stereo cameras; monocular cameras; laser scanners (such as LIDAR); or sensors that are capable of generating data containing depth information.”)
wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
divide the first distance image into a plurality of pixel groups based on the distance values of the pixels, such that each of the plurality of pixel groups includes pixels having distance values falling within one of a plurality of distance intervals different from each other; (McManus, [0137] “Thus, the embodiment being described disregards features that are extracted in quadrants believed to belong to foreground objects.” McManus’ quadrants teach the claimed pixel groups, and foreground teaches the claimed distance values (as opposed to McManus’ background).)
respectively process the plurality of pixel groups using a plurality of filter parameters set differently for the plurality of pixel groups, to reduce noises in the plurality of pixel groups; and (McManus, [0120] “Thus, an effect, in embodiments that use the precomputed Jacobian 144, is that errors in the near field are down-weighted.” McManus’ errors teach the claimed noise, and the down-weighting teaches the claimed filtering.)
combine the plurality of pixel groups processed using the plurality of filter parameters, with each other, to generate a second distance image. (McManus, abstract, “comparing the first and second representations with one another to determine which parts of the first representation represent structural elements of the locale.” See also, Fig. 12, step 1210 and Fig. 13, step 1310.)
2. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of pixel groups has a representative distance value representative of the distance values of the pixels belonging to the pixel group, and (McManus, Fig. 5e and 5f. McManus’ foreground and background (i.e., Figs. 5e and 5f) teach the claimed representative distance values.)
wherein the plurality of filter parameters are set such that noise reduction performance of the at least one processor decreases as the representative distance value of the pixel group increases. (McManus, [0120] “(i.e., the weaker signals for distant objects appear stronger since the foreground noise is reduced)”)
4. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to process at least one pixel group of the plurality of pixel groups using an interpolation parameter, to interpolate defective pixels in the pixel group, (McManus, [0105] “bilinear interpolation”)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to generate the second distance image by combining the plurality of pixel groups processed using the plurality of filter parameters, and the at least one pixel group processed by the interpolation parameter, with each other. (McManus, [0125] “After reprojecting the point cloud and filling in missing regions, an interpolation is applied (which in this embodiment is bilinear), followed by a Gaussian low-pass filter to smooth the image.” McManus’ “the image” teaches the claimed combining of pixel groups.)
5. The image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein each of the plurality of pixel groups has a representative distance value representative of the distance values of the pixels belonging to the pixel group, and (McManus, Fig. 5e and 5f. McManus’ foreground and background (i.e., Figs. 5e and 5f) teach the claimed representative distance values.)
wherein the interpolation parameter is set such that performance of the interpolating defective pixels increases as the representative distance value of the pixel group increases. (McManus, [0120] “(i.e., the weaker signals for distant objects appear stronger since the foreground noise is reduced).” See also, [0105] “the image synthesizer performs bilinear interpolation and then applies a median filter for smoothing.”)
6. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to recognize a target object in each of the plurality of pixel groups using the plurality of filter parameters. (McManus, Fig. 1, localizer 130. McManus’ localizing a vehicle teaches the claimed object recognition.)
7. The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to recognize a target object in each of the plurality of pixel groups before being processed using the plurality of filter parameters; and (McManus, Fig. 1, localizer 130. McManus’ localizing a vehicle teaches the claimed object recognition.)
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to set a filter parameter to be applied to a pixel group including the target object, based on a distance from the image capture device to the recognized object. (McManus, [0022] “implement the pre-computed filter as an average depth-Jacobian image where ∂zs/∂x is computed for each pixel in the following: … .”)
Claim 8 is rejected as per claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11568516B2 – titled “Depth-based image stitching for handling parallax”
US10453249B2 – titled “Method for alignment of low-quality noisy depth map to the high-resolution colour image”
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights