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’s Note
The examiner believes that claims recite practical application and a 101 abstract idea rejection does not apply.
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(s) 1-4, 6-8, 13-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubel (20200374461) in view of Baldwin (20180241922) in further view of Socolinksy (8587659, referred to as “Soco” herein).
Regarding claim 1, Hubel teaches a computer system that generates an overlaid image, said computer system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable hardware storage devices that store instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computer system to (pars. 58-59):
select, based on a predefined set of rules, a first image from the first set of images and a second image from the second set of images (par. 26);
Baldwin teaches access a first set of images obtained at a first frame per second (FPS) rate (par. 71); access a second set of images obtained at a second FPS rate (par. 71, different frame rate);
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hubel the ability to have different FPS rates for different cameras as taught by Baldwin. The reason is to allow the selection of suitable frames.
Soco teaches generate the overlaid image by overlaying and aligning content obtained from the second image onto the first image (see col. 5 lines 44-68).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hubel and Baldwin the ability to overlay as taught by Soco. The reason is to allow the two images to be shown on one display.
Regarding claims 2-3, see pars. 30 and 71 of Baldwin. Both 30 and 60 FPS are disclosed and par. 71 teaches the FPS is different between the sensors.
Regarding claim 4, see par. 30 of Hubel.
Regarding claim 6, see pra. 31 of Hubel, noise characteristics.
Regarding claim 7, see par. 34 of Hubel, texture.
Regarding claim 8, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, see par. 30 of Hubel.
Regarding claim 14, see par. 31 of Hubel.
Regarding claim 15, see col. 4 lines 35-40 of Soco, IMU.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claims 19, see par. 71 of Baldwin.
Regarding claim 20, see pars. 30 and 71 of Baldwin.
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubel (20200374461) in view of Baldwin (20180241922) in further view of Socolinksy (8587659, referred to as “Soco” herein) in further view of Rebecq (20200219267).
Rebecq teaches wherein the predefined set of rules is dependent on a parameter comprising a detected number of feature points in at least one of the first or second set of images (see par. 141, feature tracks and a threshold).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hubel, Soco and Baldwin the ability to have rules based on feature points as taught by Rebecq. The reason is to allow the system to track feature points to calculate motion which is a common way to calculate motion.
Claim(s) 9-10, 12 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubel (20200374461) in view of Baldwin (20180241922) in further view of Socolinksy (8587659, referred to as “Soco” herein) in further view of DeAngelis (20200288088).
Regarding claim 9, DeAngelis teaches wherein the predefined set of rules includes a bias that, when implemented, favors selection of images having later timestamps over images that have earlier timestamps (see par. 180 of DeAngelis, may attach a timestamp to each frame..).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hubel, Baldwin and Soco the ability to attach timestaps to later frames as taught by DeAngelis. The reason is to reduce latency by selecting later frames.
Regarding claim 10, see par. 185 of DeAngelis.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claims 17-18, see par. 166 of DeAngelis.
Claim(s) 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hubel (20200374461) in view of Baldwin (20180241922) in further view of Socolinksy (8587659, referred to as “Soco” herein) in further view of Lim (20180007332).
Regarding claim 11, Lim teaches wherein the predefined set of rules is dependent on a gain setting that was used to generate at least one of the first or second set of images (see par. 62).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Baldwin, Hubel and Soco the ability to have a rule based on again as taught by Lim. The reason is to allow the system to use different factors to determine rules.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676