DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khosravy et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20090315995) in view of Taborowski et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20100020074) and further in view of Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210090257).
In regards to claim 1, Khosravy teaches a method for providing point of interest (POI) information overlayed on an image [Fig. 2; e.g. method for overlaying point of interest information on an image, 0047, 0072], the method comprising:
determining a region of interest [e.g. area of interest, 0058-0059];
slicing the region of interest into a plurality of slices [Fig. 6; e.g. creating zoom zones within the area of interest, 0058-0060];
generating for display, as an overlay over the image, POI information for at least one slice of the plurality of slices [Fig. 10; e.g. POI information is overlaid over the actual image data for each zoom zone, 0072].
Khosravy does not explicitly teach
determining a region of interest based on metadata associated with the image (emphasis added);
matching features within each respective slice with known POIs;
retrieving POI information for the matched features within each respective slice.
However, Taborowski teaches
determining a region of interest [Fig. 3; e.g. regions of interest, 0095] based on metadata associated with the image [e.g. based on the laser points in the image, 0095].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Khosravy’s method with the features of
determining a region of interest based on metadata associated with the image
in the same conventional manner as taught by Taborowski because determining regions of interest based on metadata is well known and commonly used in the art of mobile mapping systems [0002-0005].
However, Khosravy as modified by Taborowski does not explicitly teach
matching features within each respective slice with known POIs;
retrieving POI information for the matched features within each respective slice.
However, Bhatia teaches
matching features [e.g. matching features, 0163] within each respective slice [e.g. within each image patch, 0163] with known POIs [e.g. with regions of interest including anatomical features and/or structures of identified tissues or organs, 0062, 0163];
retrieving POI information for the matched features within each respective slice [e.g. retrieving a degree of similarity for each image patch based on the feature signatures, 0064].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Khosravy’s method and the teachings of Taborowski with the features of
matching features within each respective slice with known POIs;
retrieving POI information for the matched features within each respective slice
in the same conventional manner as taught by Bhatia because matching features and retrieving information relating to the matched features is well known and commonly used in object/feature recognition systems.
In regards to claim 2, Khosravy teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the image is a live image [e.g. actual image data being real time viewed, 0072], and the method further comprising capturing the live image from a camera [e.g. capturing the actual image data in live view mode for the camera, 0072].
In regards to claim 3, Khosravy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising identifying, in the image, a plurality of horizon lines [Fig. 6; e.g. plurality of distances are illustrated in Figure 6 as horizontal lines, 0058-0060], wherein the region of interest is further based on the plurality of horizon lines [Fig. 6; e.g. the area of interest is based on the plurality of distances, 0058-0060], and wherein each slice of the plurality of slices corresponds to a respective horizon line of the plurality of horizon lines [Fig. 6; e.g. each of the zoom zones correspond to each distance represented by the horizontal line, 0058-0060].
In regards to claim 5, Khosravy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving an input [e.g. voice input, 0044] associated with displayed POI information [e.g. windows of information regarding a point of interest, 0044] for a slice of the plurality of slices [Fig. 6; e.g. for a zoom zone of the plurality of zoom zones, 0044-0045, 0060]; and generating for display additional information describing the POI [Fig. 10; e.g. displaying relevant information about the building, 0044].
In regards to claim 7, Khosravy teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising retrieving, based on POI information for at least one slice of the plurality of slices, continuity data associated with the image [e.g. receiving dynamic information based on static POI information for a zoom zone of the plurality of zoom zones, 0069, also see 0044-0045, 0060].
In regards to claim 8, Khosravy teaches the method of claim 7, further comprising mapping a portion of the continuity data to the image [e.g. the POI is displayed with the UI including the dynamic information, 0069].
In regards to claim 9, Khosravy teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising generating for display an interactive image based on the image and the continuity data [e.g. in addition, the user can interact with the dynamic interactive information displayed on the screen based on the image on the UI and the static POI information, 0069].
In regards to claim 11, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 1, but in the form of a system comprising: input/output circuitry; and control circuitry configured to: perform the method of claim 1. Furthermore, Khosravy teaches a system [Fig. 16; e.g. computing system environment, 0110-0111] comprising: input/output circuitry [Fig. 16; e.g. input/output devices, 0113]; and control circuitry [Fig. 16; e.g. processing unit, 0111] configured to: perform the method of claim 1. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 1 is applied.
In regards to claim 12, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 2. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 2 is applied.
In regards to claim 13, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 3. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 3 is applied.
In regards to claim 15, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 5. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 5 is applied.
In regards to claim 17, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 7. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 7 is applied.
In regards to claim 18, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 8. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 8 is applied.
In regards to claim 19, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 9. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 9 is applied.
Claim(s) 4, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khosravy et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20090315995) in view of Taborowski et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20100020074) and further in view of Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210090257) as applied to claims 3, 13 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20200057488).
In regards to claim 4, Khosravy does not explicitly teach the method of claim 3, wherein identifying, in the image, a plurality of horizon lines comprises: processing the image using one or more image processing techniques; and isolating horizontal features of the image as horizon candidates.
However, Johnson teaches the method of claim 3, wherein identifying, in the image, a plurality of horizon lines [see rejection of claim 3 above] comprises: processing the image using one or more image processing techniques [e.g. filtering technique, 0226]; and isolating horizontal features of the image as horizon candidates [Fig. 3; e.g. the contour lines in the image represent elevations, 0121, 0226].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Khosravy’s method with the features of processing the image using one or more image processing techniques; and isolating horizontal features of the image as horizon candidates in the same conventional manner as taught by Johnson because isolating horizontal features of the image is well known and commonly used in terrestrial imaging systems.
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 4. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 4 is applied.
Claim(s) 6, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khosravy et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20090315995) in view of Taborowski et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20100020074) and further in view of Bhatia et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20210090257) as applied to claims 5, 15 above, and further in view of Menozzi et al. (U.S. Patent Application 20220383524).
In regards to claim 6, Khosravy as modified by Taborowski and Bhatia does not explicitly teach the method of claim 5, further comprising generating for display an option to view 360-degree content associated with the POI.
However, Menozzi teaches the method of claim 5, further comprising generating for display an option to view 360-degree content associated with the POI [e.g. when the user activates a button/toggle switch, a menu is displayed offering the user a dynamic real-time 360° view of points of interest including its corresponding geo-registered icons and situational awareness rings, 0031].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Khosravy’s method and the teachings of Taborowski and Bhatia with the features of generating for display an option to view 360-degree content associated with the POI in the same conventional manner as taught by Menozzi because Menozzi provides a method for accurately rendering graphical user interface information on a display [Abstract].
In regards to claim 16, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 6. Therefore, the same rationale as claim 6 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 20 are 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.
In regards to claim 10, Khosravy as modified by Taborowski and Bhatia fails to teach or suggest the method of claim 1, further comprising determining, based on the metadata, geographical information associated with the image; and retrieving topographical information related to the geographical information; wherein retrieving POI information for each respective slice further comprises: comparing each respective slice with the topographical information; and identifying, based on the comparison, a respective geographical region associated with each respective slice.
In regards to claim 20, the claim recites similar limitations as claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is allowable for at least the same reason as claim 10 if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5764. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday from 11:00AM to 7:00PM 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, Said Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/ANDREW SHIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2612
/Said Broome/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2612