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 .
Examiner Note: Examiner have tried multiple times to reach the attorney of the record to discuss the 112 issue and expedite the process of the application, however no response have been received.
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the applicant's communication filed on 02/25/2026. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-6, 8-16 filed on 02/25/2026 are allowed.
Claims 1, 5, 9, 12 have been amended without adding a new subject matter.
Claim 7 has been rejected under 112(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information Disclosure statement (IDS) form PTO-1449, filed on 02/11/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosed therein was considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/25/2026 with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered.
With regard to claim objection, the objection is withdrawn in view of amendment filed on 02/25/2026.
With regard to prior art rejection, the rejection has been withdrawn in view of the arguments and amendment filed on 02/25/2026.
Claim 7 has been rejected under 35 USC § 112, necessitated by the amendment filed on 02/25/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 is repeated limitation of amended portion. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 8-16 are allowable.
Reasons for Allowance
The following arts are also cited as relevant but not sufficient to disclose teach or fairly suggest, alone or in combination, the subject matter of the independent claims:
Nakagawa (US 2022/0148432), discloses an imaging system of the present disclosure includes: an event detection sensor that detects an event; an object recognition unit that performs recognition processing for an object detected as the event on the basis of an event signal output from the event detection sensor; a motion vector estimation unit that estimates a motion vector of the object on the basis of a recognition result by the object recognition unit; and a control unit that outputs warning information for warning that a dangerous state has occurred on the basis of an estimation result by the motion vector estimation unit. (Abstract)
Chen et al. (CN 113837936 A) discloses the invention claims a panoramic image generating method and device. The method comprises: generating a continuous image frame for displaying the surrounding scene of the vehicle body, and obtaining the first bird ' s-eye view image and the second bird ' s-eye view image from the continuous image frame, wherein the first bird ' s-eye view image is the previous image frame of the second bird ' s-eye view image; according to the first bird ' s-eye view image and the second bird ' s-eye view image, determining a rotation translation matrix; using the rotating translation matrix to perform fast Fourier transform processing to the panoramic image corresponding to the first bird ' s-eye-view image shooting time, obtaining a first intermediate image, wherein the panoramic image is used for displaying the scene around the vehicle body and below the vehicle chassis, the first intermediate image is used for displaying the image corresponding to the first bird ' s-eye-view image shooting time corresponding to the second bird ' s-eye-view image shooting time through the rotary translation matrix; splicing the first middle image and the second bird ' s-eye view image, obtaining the panoramic image corresponding to the second bird ' s-eye view image shooting time. so as to improve the image quality.(Abstract.)
Biemer et al. (US 2016/0096477) discloses a vision system of a vehicle includes at least one camera disposed at a vehicle and having a field of view exterior of the vehicle. The camera has at least one pixelated imaging array having a plurality of photosensing elements. The pixelated imaging array includes a plurality of event-based gray level transition sensitive photosensing elements. A processor is operable to process data captured by the camera and, responsive to processing of captured data, the processor is operable to detect objects present in the field of view of the camera. The pixelated imaging array may include a first imaging array having visible light sensitive photosensing elements and a second imaging array having the plurality of event-based gray level transition sensitive photosensing elements.(Abstract)
A statement indicating reasons for allowable subject matter follows: the analysis of closest prior arts, examiner’s actions, and the applicant’s replies make evident the reasons for allowance, satisfying the “record as a whole” proviso of the rule. This is particularly true when applicant fully complies with 37 CFR 1.111 (b) and (c) and 37 CFR 1.133(b). Thus, where the examiner’s actions clearly point out the reasons for rejection and the applicant’s reply explicitly presents reasons why claims are patentable over the reference, the reasons for allowance are in all probability evident from the record.
Regarding independent claim 1, the cited prior arts of record, alone or in combination fails to fairly teach or suggest the combination of the limitations “A method, using a computer-implemented image processing engine, of downscaling images stored in electronically readable media, the method comprising: receiving a first image defined by a first set of pixels establishing a first image size at a first resolution, wherein the first image is represented in a computer-readable media; generating a second image defined by a second set of pixels establishing a second image size at a second resolution by downscaling the first image to form the second image, wherein the second image is represented in the computer-readable media and wherein values of the second set of pixels are defined by a function of the first set of pixels and wherein the second image size is smaller than the first image size; upscaling the second image to a third image, wherein the third image is represented in the computer-readable media and wherein the third image is defined by a third set of pixels derived from the second set of pixels establishing a third image size same as the first image size with a third resolution; associating individual pixels in the second image with a corresponding group of pixels from the third set of pixels; sampling a first image area of the first image, having a first image area size, at a first location of the first set of pixels to generate a first image sample, the first location comprising a patch of the first image smaller than the first image size; sampling a second image area of the third set of pixels corresponding to the first location of the first image area and the first image area size to generate a second image sample, the second image sample being a sample of the third image comprising patches, wherein pixels of each patch of the patches can be optimized, by the computer-implemented image processing engine independently of pixels of other patches; measuring a similarity between the first image area of the first image and the second image area of the third set of pixels by processing the first image sample and the second image sample to generate a perceptual image value; recursively adjusting values of third set of pixels until the image perception value matches a perceptual standard value within a pre-defined threshold; adjusting individual pixel values in the second image to a representative pixel value of each of the corresponding group of pixels; and storing the individual pixel values as the second image in the computer-readable media. ”, as recited in the independent claims.
Dependent Claims 2-6, 8-16 are allowed due to their dependency on the above-noted independent claims.
As per dependent claim 7, Applicant may cancel the claim or amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form to overcome the above-described rejection under 112 (d).
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 SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA whose telephone number is (571)272-1459. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30-6:30.
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 (571)272-8243. 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.
/SHAGHAYEGH AZIMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights