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 .
Application has canceled claims 2, 4, 10, 12, 18, and 21-80. Thus, application has pending claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 13-17 and 19-20.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9, filed 1/15/2026, with respect to claim 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 15 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 9, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Thus, the combined references of Nover, in combination with Woodfill and TANKOVICH, disclose the amended limitations of claims 1, 9, and 16. As such, this action is made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…a change in pixel value from previous frame…” The limitation should read “from the previous frame”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the filtered change value”. The limitation should be “the filtered pixel change value” in order to draw antecedence to “a filtered pixel change value” in the beginning of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 6-7, 9, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris Nover ESPReSSO, hereinafter Nover, as included in the IDS dated 9/1/23, in further view of John I. Woodfill US-20140205181-A1, hereinafter Woodfill, and Vladimir TANKOVICH US-20190287259-A1, hereinafter TANKOVICH.
As per claim 9, Nover discloses a method for real-time active stereo comprising: receive stereo image data (see Nover page 2/9 Section 3, wherein a plurality of image pairs, i.e., stereo images, are acquired);compute descriptors representing local pixel patterns for the stereo image data (see Nover page 3/9 Section 3.1 and Algorithm 1 lines 1-3, wherein the descriptors are computed for
I
r
e
f
and
I
s
e
c
, i.e., reference and secondary image pair, i.e., the stereo images. These descriptors are computed for each pixel
(
x
,
y
)
at pattern
t
);compute a matching cost for each of a plurality of planes using the descriptors (see Nover page 3/9 and Algorithm 1, wherein the matching cost is computed for each plane
P
i
using the descriptors
B
r
e
f
. This is done for
n
iterations for the input image stack), the plurality of planes being different geometric representations of depth (see Nover page 5/9 Section 3.4 and Algorithm 1, wherein each plane is at a different geometric scale with its own depth continuity that is adjusted based off the previous winning plane);select a plane from the plurality of planes for a group of pixels based on an updated matching cost (see Nover page 5/9 Section 3.3, wherein the winning planes selected are those near the cost minimum, i.e., lowest matching cost / lowest aggregate cost. See also page 6/9 Section 4.1, wherein the winner planes are updated using the resulting costs / lowest aggregate cost); andassign depth values from the selected plane to the group of pixels (see Nover page 5/9 Section 3.3 Hot Start, wherein the selected winning plane is used to estimate the depth for the pixels of that tile).
However, Nover fails to explicitly teach where Woodfill teaches:compute a stability penalty (see Woodfill ¶36 and ¶41, wherein the penalty cost, i.e., stability penalty, is calculated using
C
(
P
,
d
(
P
)
)
, which includes the disparity multiplier d*P, and
k
1
) based on an intensity multiplier representing pixel intensity (see Woodfill ¶36 wherein a multiplier k1 is calculated where d(P) = d(P)d(P’)-1; wherein P’ is the discontinuity is a neighboring pixel, i.e., the pixel change) and a disparity multiplier representing a change in depth (see Woodfill ¶35, wherein a disparity multiplier d*P using the disparity values D is calculated); andupdate the matching cost based on the stability penalty (see Woodfill ¶36 and ¶41, wherein the penalty is updated based on the disparity, which is then used to update the cost given that disparity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to update Nover’s matching cost by using Woodfill’s teaching of a stability penalty in order to improve the similarity matching between the stereo images.
While Nover, in combination with Woodfill, discloses a stability penalty, it fails to explicitly disclose where TANKOVICH teaches:compute a stability penalty (see TANKOVICH ¶23-35, wherein a matching cost, i.e., stability penalty, for disparity hypothesis is calculated. This penalty includes intensity and disparity functions,
I
L
(
.
)
and
I
R
(
.
)
, for the reconstruction error) based on an intensity multiplier representing pixel intensity between a pixel in a current frame and the pixel in a previous frame (see TANKOVICH ¶33-35, wherein the intensity values of the pixels between the left and right images, which are parallel, is calculated) and a disparity multiplier representing a change in depth between a current estimate and a previous estimate (see TANKOVICH ¶28-35, wherein the disparity between the left and right images is calculated, measuring the tile depths).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nover, in combination with Woodfill, by using TANKOVICH’s teaching by including a difference in pixel intensity and disparity to the current and previous depth maps in order to more accurately determine the change between the two maps.
As per claim 14, Nover, in combination with Woodfill and TANKOVICH, discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:computing the intensity multiplier using an intensity function inputted with a pixel change value (see Woodfill ¶34-36, wherein the disparity d is inputted with the discontinuity neighboring pixel P’); andcomputing the disparity multiplier using a disparity function inputted with the pixel change value, the disparity function being different than the intensity function (see Woodfill ¶34-36, wherein the disparity d is inputted with the pixel P, which is different from the pixel P’).
As per claim 1, the rationale provided in claim 9 are incorporated herein. In addition, Nover discloses a capture system (see Nover FIG. 2) and a depth sensing computing system (see Nover page 2/9 Section 3). The system of claim 1 correspond with the method of claim 9.
As per claims 6-7 and 20, the rationale provided in claim 14 is incorporated herein. In addition, Woodfill discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium (see Woodfill ¶73, wherein a computer readable medium is disclosed). The system of claims 6-7 and the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 20 corresponds with claim 14.
As per claim 16 the rationale provided in claim 9 are incorporated herein. Additionally, the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 16 corresponds with the method of claim 9.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nover, in combination with Woodfill and TANKOVICH, in further view of FRANKE UWE WO-2010083970-A1, hereinafter FRANKE.
As per claim 15, Nover, in combination with Woodfill and TANKOVICH, discloses the method of claim 9, further comprising:computing the matching cost based on Hamming distances between the descriptors (see Nover page 3/9 section 3.1, wherein the matching cost between descriptors is computed using Hamming distance); and filtering the matching cost using an edge-aware filter (see Nover page 4/9 Section 3.2, wherein the matching cost is aggregated using an edge-aware filter).
However, Nover, in combination with Woodfill and TANKOVICH, fails to explicitly disclose where FRANKE teaches:wherein the filtered matching cost is updated with the stability penalty (see FRANKE bottom of page 3/23 and top of page 4/23, wherein edge filtering is performed, followed by a matching algorithm to increase the penalty cost).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Nover’s, in combination with Woodfill and TANKOVICH, method by using FRANKE’s teaching by modifying the stability penalty to be updated with the filtered matching cost in order to more accurately measure the penalty for the edge filtered image.
As per claim 8, the rationale provided in claim 15 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 15 corresponds to the system of claim 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 11, 13, and 19 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights