DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 4, 6-10 and 14-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 1/27/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are not independent. This is not found persuasive because the Requirement for Restriction of 1/27/26 specified distinct species and not inventions. Applicant’s arguments concerning the criteria of distinctness between combination and subcombination does not relate to an election of species. The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species. For instance, the Applicant’s specification discusses the alternative methods of stitching images in reference to Manner 1, Manner 4 and Manner 3’. The amendment to the claims does not alter the mutually exclusive characteristics recited by the claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referenced to establish that the subject matter is ineligible.
Step 1: claim 1 recites an apparatus and claim 11 recites a method. Claims 1 and 11 fall under one of the four recognized statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One: However, claims 1 and 11 are further directed to the abstract idea of optimally stitching two images. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Furthermore, the claims do not preclude the limitations from being performed in the human mind. The limitations are mental processes that can be performed by a human using pen and paper. For example, a human is capable of rotating and padding images.
Step 2A Prong Two: Additional elements include a processor and memory in claim 1 and a system on a chip in claim 5. The involvement of a generic computer components does not provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recitations to hardware involve no more than a generic computer performing generic computer functions that are well understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry. That is, other than reciting “by a processor,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Step 2B: The claims do not provide an inventive concept as they do not provide an improvement to any type of particular machine. Optimally placing two images to reduce their combined size does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer technology. The claims do not improve the computer system that is implementing the abstract idea. Merely automating or otherwise making efficient traditional methods do not constitute an inventive concept. Therefore claims 1-3, 5, 11-13 and 20 are non-statutory.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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 1-3, 11-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ino US Publication 2022/0083305 (hereafter “Ino”).
Referring to claims 1 and 11, Ino discloses an apparatus for image processing, wherein the apparatus comprises:
at least one processor (paragraph 37, The integrated ECU 10 includes a microcomputer, as a main component, having, for example, a processor, a memory); and
one or more memories coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the apparatus to:
obtain a first stitched image based on a first image and a second image (paragraph 39The mixed image storage 110 stores an image (hereinafter, referred to as a “mixed image”) in which images (hereinafter, referred to as “link images”) for the respective display units are synthesized in one frame); and
send the first stitched image, wherein:
a quantity of row pixels of the first image is M, a quantity of column pixels of the first image is N, M>N, and both M and N are positive integers (paragraph 44, FIG. 4 shows C2 as having a greater vertical dimension than horizontal);
a quantity of row pixels of the second image is P, a quantity of column pixels of the second image is Q, Q>M, and both P and Q are positive integers (paragraph 44, FIG. 4 shows that the horizontal dimension of C1 is greater than the vertical dimension of C2); and
a quantity of row pixels of the first stitched image is N+P (FIG. 4 shows that the horizontal dimension of the frame is the horizontal dimension of C1 and the vertical dimension of C2), a quantity of column pixels of the first stitched image is Q (FIG. 4 shows the vertical dimension of the frame is the vertical dimension of C1), the first stitched image comprises the second image and a third image, the third image is an image obtained through first preprocessing of the first image, and the first preprocessing comprises rotating the first image, or the first preprocessing comprises rotating and padding the first image (paragraph 44, In one example, it may be configured that the respective link images for the CID 20 and the meter MID 30 are synthesized in one frame by rotating a first one of the link images having the long side with a smaller number of pixels such that the long side of the first one of the link images is laid along a short side of a second one of the link images having the long side with a larger number of pixels. In a specific example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the link images are synthesized with each other while the link image for the meter MID 30 is clockwise rotated 90 degrees such that the long side of the link image for the meter MID 30 is laid along the short side of the link image for the CID 20).
Referring to claims 2 and 12, Ino discloses wherein the programming instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
rotate the first image, to obtain a fourth image;
perform pixel padding on the fourth image, to obtain the third image; and
stitch the third image and the second image, to obtain the first stitched image (paragraph 44, In one example, it may be configured that the respective link images for the CID 20 and the meter MID 30 are synthesized in one frame by rotating a first one of the link images having the long side with a smaller number of pixels such that the long side of the first one of the link images is laid along a short side of a second one of the link images having the long side with a larger number of pixels. In a specific example, as illustrated in FIG. 4, the link images are synthesized with each other while the link image for the meter MID 30 is clockwise rotated 90 degrees such that the long side of the link image for the meter MID 30 is laid along the short side of the link image for the CID 20).
Referring to claims 3 and 13, Ino discloses wherein that the programming instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to:
perform pixel padding from a first target position of the fourth image, to obtain the third image (paragraph 44, UA in FIG. 4 indicates an unused region, in which no link image is disposed, in one frame).
Referring to claim 20, Ino discloses wherein the first target position comprises a bottom position (paragraph 44, UA in FIG. 4 indicates an unused region, in which no link image is disposed, in one frame).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ino US Publication 2022/0083305 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Applicant admitted prior art.
Referring to claim 5, Ino discloses the apparatus according to claim 1, but does not disclose expressly wherein the apparatus comprises a system on a chip (SoC).
The Applicant’s admitted prior art discloses wherein the apparatus comprises a system on a chip (SoC) (paragraph 4, The CDC includes a system on a chip (system on a chip, SoC).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a system on a chip. The motivation for doing so would have been to incorporate a widely available integrated circuit that standardizes the processor in order to reduce cost and improve efficiency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Applicant’s admitted prior art with Ino to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER K HUNTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)272-7435. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Benny Q Tieu can be reached at 571-272-7490. 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.
/PETER K HUNTSINGER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682