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 .
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-21 are cancelled.
New claims 42 and 43 are accepted and entered.
The amendments to claims 22, 28, 30, and 41 are accepted and entered.
Claims 34-40 and 42-43 are allowed.
Claims 22-43 are pending regarding this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the 101 Rejection applied to claim 41 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has added “stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium” to the preamble of claim 41. As such, independent claim 41 now falls under one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The 101 Rejection of claim 41 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see the Remarks, filed 08/07/2026, with respect to the 112(b) Rejection applied to claims 28, 30, and 41 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant has appropriately amended claims 28, 30, and 41, as shown in the Claims filed on 08/07/2026 to overcome the 112(b) Rejections as outlined in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on 05/06/2026. The 112(b) Rejection of claims 18, 30, and 41 has been withdrawn.
Applicant has acknowledged the indication of allowability regarding claims 34-40. To promote clarity throughout ongoing prosecution, the 112(f) Claim Interpretation section and Allowable Subject Matter section have been repeated in their entirety and are updated to reflect new claims 42 and 43, which depend on one or more of the allowed claims, in the below Office Action.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/07/2026, regarding the 102 Rejection of claims 22-26, 30, 32, and 33, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued against the 102 Rejection of independent claim 22. In the Remarks, Applicant specifically argues that “the Office Action has failed to provide any justification as to why Fournier inherently discloses encoding of a deflection metric for each point in the image data as a data value in projection data”. However, the Non-Final Reaction, mailed 05/06/2026, specifically recites that “Fournier subsequently teaches “an equation can usually be used to compensate for the geometric distortion caused by the lens in relation to an equiangular projection” in section 4.2.2.2 wherein the process of “converting from an equal area projection to an equiangular projection” occurs as shown in section 4.2.2.1-4.2.2.2. Here, this conversion process of projection parameters from an equal area projection to an equiangular projection inherently involves encoding the zenith angle (deflection metric)”. The above citation specifically cites that the geometric distortion compensation, wherein a conversion from an equal area projection to an equiangular projection occurs, inherently involves encoding the zenith angle (deflection metric). To explain this further, when correcting for the geometric distortion introduced by the lens, the zenith angle is computed for every pixel (Fournier teaches that “all the points on the photograph with the same Vh form a circle with radius R. Vh ranges from 0° in the center to Vhmax = 90° at the edges of the photograph (at Rmax). The distances between the circles for Vh at regular intervals of h characterize the projection” in Section 4.2.2.1 wherein “all distance on the image can be associated with its corresponding vector V associated with an azimuth and zenith angle of the 3D spherical coordinates” as shown in FIG. 4.2. Here, the zenith angle for each point in the image data is discovered), and the process of determining a function such that the radius (R) is a function of the Zenith angle (Vθ) (Fourier, see the equation 4.2 in Section 4.2.2.2) is an explicit representation of the encoding, wherein the zenith angle is encoded as a radius. As such, it is clear that Fourier teaches the limitation “encoding a deflection metric as a data value in projection data”.
Applicant's arguments, filed 08/07/2026, regarding the 103 Rejection of claim 41, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has argued against the 103 Rejection of independent claim 41. In the Remarks, Applicant specifically argues that “Baele is silent as to a data format holding a second regular array of a plurality of deflection metric values reflecting the structure of the first regular array of image values”. Examiner agrees that the second regular array as taught by Baele does not specifically include a plurality of zenith angles. However, the deflection metric values are defined in claim 41, as values which “are each indicative of an angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric”. As such, “since the vertical and horizontal positions of the pixels in the 2D pixel array themselves correspond to zenith and azimuth angles of the points they represent” as taught by Baele in para. [0099], it can be interpreted that the “vertical and horizontal positions of the pixels in the 2D pixel array” are equivalent to the deflection metric values, as they are directly indicative of an angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric (i.e., zenith angle). Said differently, the claim does not specifically state that the deflection metric value must be equivalent to the angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric, instead it only states that the deflection metric values must be indicative of an angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric (emphasis added). Furthermore, since both the first array as taught by Fourier and the second array as taught by Baele contain each and every pixel in the image data, it is believed that Fourier in view of Baele teaches “a data format holding a second regular array of a plurality of deflection metric values reflecting the structure of the first regular array of image values”, wherein the reflected structure is the structure wherein all pixels in the image data are included.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 34: “the processing system is configured to: a) receive image data of a scene; b) determine a principal axis of a projection model for projecting the scene onto a two-dimensional grid of pixels; and c) determine, for each pixel projected from the scene, a deflection metric indicative of an angle between the principal axis and a projection ray through said pixel; wherein the system is characterized in that the processing system is further configured to: d) encode the deflection metric as a data value associated with each pixel as projection data”
In claim 37: “an imaging system for obtaining the image data..” and “the processing system is configured to receive the image data”
In claim 38: “the processing system is further configured to provide the image data…”
In claim 39: “the processing system is further configured to:…” and “an imaging system for recording the image data”
In claim 40: “the processing system is further configured to: the processing system is further configured to:”
After a careful analysis, as disclosed above, and a careful review of the specification, the processing system is interpreted as computer-implemented 112(f). See MPEP 2181 (II) (B) regarding computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. Below is the corresponding structure and algorithm (if applicable) which are being read into the above limitation:
“processing system” (See FIG. 5, #12. In the specification, para. [0049] defines the processing system as “a single processing unit or may comprise a plurality of processing units, which may be functionally connected”. Therefore, the corresponding structure for the processing system is a processor(s) and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0012]-[0049] and [0097]-[0100]).
“imaging system” (In the specification, para. [0055] recites “an imaging system for obtaining the image data of the scene via a measurement, in particular comprising a camera and/or a distance measuring device”. Therefore, the corresponding structure for the imaging system is the physical structure of camera and/or distance measuring device).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 22-26, 30, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fourier et al. (“Acquiring Hemispherical Photographs in Forest Environments: From Planning to Archiving Photographs”), hereinafter Fourier.
Regarding claim 22, Fournier teaches a computer-implemented method for encoding projection properties associated with image data of a scene (Fourier, see the method for encoding as explained in the mapping of step d)), said method comprising the steps of:
a) receiving the image data (Fourier teaches determining “HP links or map 3D points in the hemispherical object region to points on a 2D image plane according to some theoretical projection model” in Section 4.2.2.1, wherein the following calculations are generated based on received 2D image data. See also the generated image (received image data) as shown in the description of Fig. 4.2);
b) determining a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene (Fournier teaches a viewing direction vector (V) “associated with generation of the hemispherical image on a film or on a CCD matrix of a camera” in Section 4.2.2.1 and FIG. 4.2. Here, this viewing direction vector, specifically V0, is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed principal axis); and
c) determining, for each point in the image data, a deflection metric indicative of an angle between the principal axis and a projection ray through said point (Fournier teaches a viewing direction vector (V) which “represents the reverse path that the light ray travels to the point on the photograph” as shown in Section 4.2.2.1, wherein Vθ represents the principal axis, V represents the projection ray, and the venith angle θ represents the deflection metric. See also FIG. 4.2);
wherein the method is characterized by
d) encoding the deflection metric for each point in the image data as a data value in projection data (Fournier teaches that “all the points on the photograph with the same Vh form a circle with radius R. Vh ranges from 0° in the center to Vhmax = 90° at the edges of the photograph (at Rmax). The distances between the circles for Vh at regular intervals of h characterize the projection” in Section 4.2.2.1 wherein “all distance on the image can be associated with its corresponding vector V associated with an azimuth and zenith angle of the 3D spherical coordinates” as shown in FIG. 4.2. Here, the zenith angle for each point in the image data is discovered. Fournier subsequently teaches “an equation can usually be used to compensate for the geometric distortion caused by the lens in relation to an equiangular projection” in section 4.2.2.2 wherein the process of “converting from an equal area projection to an equiangular projection” occurs as shown in section 4.2.2.1-4.2.2.2. Here, this conversion process of projection parameters from an equal area projection to an equiangular projection inherently involves encoding the zenith angle (deflection metric). The process of determining a function such that the radius (R) is a function of the Zenith angle (Vθ) (Fourier, see the equation 4.2 in Section 4.2.2.2) is an explicit representation of the encoding, wherein the zenith angle is encoded as a radius).
Regarding claim 23, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22,
wherein one or both of the angle and the deflection metric are mathematically equivalent or proportional to the zenith angle of a spherical coordinate system (Fournier teaches the zenith angle which is also defined above as equivalent to the deflection metric in Section 4.2.2.1),
wherein the zenith is aligned with the principal axis of the projection model (Fournier teaches the viewing direction, wherein it is inherent that a principal axis (wherein Vθ = 0) would align with the zenith in Section 4.2.2.1).
Regarding claim 24, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22,
wherein the projection model is based on a cylindrical or spherical projection model (Fournier teaches a 3D spherical projection model as depicted in FIG. 4.2).
Regarding claim 25, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22,
wherein the principal axis goes through a center of a field of view of an imaging apparatus for recording the scene (Fournier teaches the viewing direction, wherein it is inherent that a principal axis (wherein Vθ = 0) would align with the the center of a field of view as shown in Section 4.2.2.1 and FIG. 4.2).
Regarding claim 26, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22, wherein equipotential lines of the deflection metric encoded for each point in the image data approximate elliptic arcs around the principal axis in an image of the scene (Fourier teaches a circle/ring (elliptic arcs) corresponding to a zenith angle (deflection metric) between 0 degrees and 90 degrees for all the points on the photograph and the viewing direction vector (V) (principal axis) in section 4.2.2.1 on page 92).
Regarding claim 30, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22,
wherein the method further comprises recording a distance between the camera and a projected point for each point in the image data (Fourier teaches that, “therefore all distance on the image can be associated with its corresponding vector V associated with an azimuth and zenith angle of the 3D spherical coordinate” in FIG. 4.2).
Regarding claim 32, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the method comprises:
a) receiving image data for the scene (Fournier, FIG. 4.2 recites “Geometry in spherical coordinate associated with generation of the hemispherical image on a film or on a CCD matrix of a camera”, wherein the image here is the received image data) and projection information of an imaging system for recording the image data (Fournier additionally teaches that “all distance on the image can be associated with its corresponding vector V associated with an azimuth and zenith angle of the 3D spherical coordinates” in FIG. 4.2, wherein this vector/coordinate/photograph’s plane information along with the characterization of the projection as taught in section 4.2.2.1 is interpreted as the projection information); and
determining the deflection metric for each point in the image data based on the projection information of the imaging system (Fournier teaches determining a zenith angle (deflection metric) for each distance on the image as shown in FIG. 4.2, wherein the zenith angle inherently depends on the projection information (i.e. vector/coordinate information/photograph’s plane)).
Regarding claim 33, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22, wherein the method comprises:
a) receiving three-dimensional point data of the scene (Fourier teaches receiving 3D points of a hemispherical object region in section 4.2.2.1 and FIG. 4.2); and
b) calculating a projection of the three-dimensional point data on a two-dimensional image for obtaining two-dimensional image data for the scene (Fourier teaches “map[ping] 3D points in the hemispherical object region to points on a 2D image plane according to some theoretical projection model” in Section 4.2.2.1).
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.
Claim 27-29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourier et al. (“Acquiring Hemispherical Photographs in Forest Environments: From Planning to Archiving Photographs”), hereinafter Fourier in view of Sun et al. (“An Accurate Fourier-Based Method for Three-Dimensional Reconstruction of Transparent Surfaces in the Shape-From-Polarization Method”), hereinafter Sun.
Regarding claim 27, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22.
Fourier fails to teach wherein the method further comprises, determining a local gradient of the deflection metric at a certain point in the image data based on the values of the deflection metric in neighboring points in the image data for reconstructing a position of the certain point in the scene.
However, Sun teaches wherein the method further comprises, determining a local gradient of the deflection metric at a certain point in the image data based on the values of the deflection metric in neighboring points in the image data (Sun teaches a method of generating the normal vector (or gradient) based on the zenith angle at a point (x,y) and the zenith angle (deflection metric) of the surrounding points as shown in Equation (4) and Section II(A)) for reconstructing a position of the certain point in the scene (Sun teaches that the gradient (as shown above) is used to calculate depth cues in order to reconstruct a transparent surface as shown in Section II(A). This process of reconstructing a surface based on position directly involves a reconstruction of the position certain point in the scene).
Fourier and Sun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing projection data in image reconstruction/mapping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fourier to incorporate the teachings of Sun and include “wherein the method further comprises, determining a local gradient of the deflection metric at a certain point in the image data based on the values of the deflection metric in neighboring points in the image data for reconstructing a position of the certain point in the scene”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “based on the finite center difference operator, we derive a new differentiation operator by increasing heights and slopes in the operator and limiting the truncation error, to improve the accuracy of the Fourier-based method for integrating the heights from the discrete gradients (denoted as ADO-FT)” and “to eliminate zenith angle ambiguity and azimuth ambiguity in polarization analysis”, as suggested by Sun in Section I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Fourier with Sun to obtain the invention specified in claim 27.
Regarding claim 28, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22.
Fourier fails to teach wherein the local gradient of the deflection metric at a given point is substantially aligned along a line through a principal point associated with the projection model, wherein a structure of the projection data reflects a structure of the image data, such that a local operation on the deflection metric of neighboring points estimates the local gradient.
However, Sun teaches wherein the local gradient of the deflection metric at a given point is substantially aligned along a line through a principal point associated with the projection model (Sun teaches determining a gradient of a point (i.e. local gradient) which is equivalent to the normal vector as shown in Equation (4) and Section II(A). Furthermore, it is clear from FIG. 1, that the local gradient (Normal vector) passes through a principal (center) point of the projection model (see the point in FIG. 1 where the Normal vector, Reflected ray, and Incident ray intersect), wherein a structure of the projection data reflects a structure of the image data, such that a local operation on the deflection metric of neighboring points estimates the local gradient (Sun teaches that the projection data (world coordinate system) reflects the image data (pixel coordinate system) as shown in Section II(C), wherein the gradient is the gradient of the deflection metric of the coordinates of each pixel in the image plane).
Fourier and Sun are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of analyzing projection data in image reconstruction/mapping. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fourier to incorporate the teachings of Sun and include “wherein the local gradient of the deflection metric at a given point is substantially aligned along a line through a principal point associated with the projection model, wherein a structure of the projection data reflects a structure of the image data, such that a local operation on the deflection metric of neighboring points estimates the local gradient”. The motivation for doing so would have been that “based on the finite center difference operator, we derive a new differentiation operator by increasing heights and slopes in the operator and limiting the truncation error, to improve the accuracy of the Fourier-based method for integrating the heights from the discrete gradients (denoted as ADO-FT)” and to “to eliminate zenith angle ambiguity and azimuth ambiguity in polarization analysis”, as suggested by Sun in Section I. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Fourier with Sun to obtain the invention specified in claim 28.
Regarding claim 29, Fournier and Sun teach the method of claim 28,
wherein the local operation on the deflection metric of neighboring points estimates the local gradient using an image gradient operator on the deflection metrics of the given point and its direct neighbors in image data, wherein the image gradient operator is a discrete differentiation operator for computing an approximation of the gradient of the deflection metric in the points of the image data (Sun teaches that “to integrate the heights from the discrete gradient data, a differentiation operator for building a connection between D⋅(m,n) and S⋅(m,n) is used to calculate the expansion coefficient Z (p,q) , where D⋅(m,n) is the difference in the ⋅ (indicating x or y) direction and S⋅(m,n) is a formula for estimating the difference with gradients at discrete samples” as shown in Section II(B). Here, Sun’s teaching of the differentiation operator is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed image gradient operator/discrete differentiation operator).
Similar motivations as applied to claim 28 can be applied here to claim 29.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourier et al. (“Acquiring Hemispherical Photographs in Forest Environments: From Planning to Archiving Photographs”), hereinafter Fourier in view of Sekii et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0029394 A1), hereinafter Sekii.
Regarding claim 31, Fournier teaches the method of claim 22.
Fournier fails to teach wherein the method further comprises providing the image data alongside the deflection metric to a machine learning classifier for classifying objects in an image of the scene based on the image data.
However, Sekii teaches wherein the method further comprises providing the image data alongside the deflection metric to a machine learning classifier for classifying objects in an image of the scene based on the image data (Sekii teaches a process of utilizing a CNN (machine learning classifier) to classify key points of an object model 600 by utilizing polar angles (deflection metric) in para. [0080]-[0084] and [0016]. See also FIGs. 6 and 7).
Fourier and Sekii are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of utilizing deflection metrics to characterize objects captured in a projection setting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fourier to incorporate the teachings of Sekii and include “wherein the method further comprises providing the image data alongside the deflection metric to a machine learning classifier for classifying objects in an image of the scene based on the image data”. The motivation for doing so would have been “to detect feature points that are different from key points satisfying conditions in an orthogonal coordinate system of an input image” and “increase accuracy of an outline of a displayed object”, as suggested by Sekii in para. [0018] and para. [0107], respectively. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Fourier with Sekii to obtain the invention specified in claim 31.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fourier et al. (“Acquiring Hemispherical Photographs in Forest Environments: From Planning to Archiving Photographs”), hereinafter Fourier in view of Baele et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0016879 A1), hereinafter Baele.
Regarding claim 41, Fournier teaches the data structure stored on a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising:
a) image data, wherein the image data comprises a plurality of image values arranged in a first regular array, the first regular array of image values forming a two-dimensional image (Fourier, FIG. 4.2 depicts a 2D matrix containing image values which represents a 2D image); and
b) projection data, wherein the projection data comprises a plurality of deflection metric values wherein the deflection metric values are each indicative of an angle between a principal axis (Fournier teaches a viewing direction vector (V) “associated with generation of the hemispherical image on a film or on a CCD matrix of a camera” in Section 4.2.2.1 and FIG. 4.2. Here, this viewing direction vector, specifically V0, is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed principal axis) of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric (Fournier teaches a viewing direction vector (V) which “represents the reverse path that the light ray travels to the point on the photograph” as shown in Section 4.2.2.1, wherein Vθ represents the principal axis, V represents the projection ray, and the venith angle θ represents the deflection metric. See also FIG. 4.2).
Fournier fails to teach a plurality of deflection metric values arranged in a second regular array reflecting the structure of the first regular array of image values.
However, Baele teaches a plurality of deflection metric values arranged in a second regular array reflecting the structure of the first regular array of image values (Baele teaches that “the vertical and horizontal positions of the pixels in the 2D pixel array themselves correspond to zenith and azimuth angles of the points they represent with respect to the TOF 3D camera” as shown in para. [0099]. Here, the 2D pixel array is interpreted as equivalent to the claimed regular array. Furthermore, the deflection metric values are defined in claim 41, as values which “are each indicative of an angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric”. As such, “since the vertical and horizontal positions of the pixels in the 2D pixel array themselves correspond to zenith and azimuth angles of the points they represent” as taught by Baele in para. [0099], it can be interpreted that the “vertical and horizontal positions of the pixels in the 2D pixel array” are equivalent to the deflection metric values, as they are directly indicative of an angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric (i.e., zenith angle). Said differently, the claim does not specifically state that the deflection metric value must be equivalent to the angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric, instead it only states that the deflection metric values must be indicative of an angle between a principal axis of a projection model for obtaining the image data from a scene and a projection ray corresponding to the image value in the image data at the same position as the deflection metric (emphasis added). Since both the first array as taught by Fourier and the second array as taught by Baele contain each and every pixel in the image data, it is believed that Fourier in view of Baele teaches “a data format holding a second regular array of a plurality of deflection metric values reflecting the structure of the first regular array of image values”, wherein the reflected structure is the structure wherein all pixels in the image data are included).
Fourier and Baele are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of utilizing deflection metrics to characterize objects captured in a projection setting. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Fourier to incorporate the teachings of Baele and include “a plurality of deflection metric values arranged in a second regular array reflecting the structure of the first regular array of image values”. The motivation for doing so would have been such that “each frame can be illustrated as in FIG. 2 by a three-dimensional cloud of pixels 5 corresponding to visible points of the objects in range of the TOF 3D camera 3”, as suggested by Baele in para. [0099]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to combine Fourier with Baele to obtain the invention specified in claim 41.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 34-40 and 42-43 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
The best prior art of record is Fourier, Sun, Sekii, and Baele. Prior art applied alone or in combination with fails to anticipate or render obvious claims 34-40 and 42-43.
***Please note that the processing system is being interpreted under 112(f) as a computer-implemented means-plus-function limitation, wherein the corresponding algorithm of the acquisition unit is being read into the limitation: “wherein the processing system is configured to: a) receive image data of a scene; b) determine a principal axis of a projection model for projecting the scene onto a two-dimensional grid of pixels; and c) determine, for each pixel projected from the scene, a deflection metric indicative of an angle between the principal axis and a projection ray through said pixel; wherein the system is characterized in that the processing system is further configured to: d) encode the deflection metric as a data value associated with each pixel as projection data” of claim 34. In the specification, para. [0049] defines the processing system as “a single processing unit or may comprise a plurality of processing units, which may be functionally connected”. Therefore, the corresponding structure for the processing system is a general-purpose processor(s) and the corresponding algorithm which can be found in para. [0012]-[0049] and [0097]-[0100]. Claiming a means for performing a specific computer-implemented function and disclosing only a general-purpose computer as its structure amounts to pure functional claiming. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d 1328 at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. In this instance, the structure corresponding to a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation for a computer-implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. See MPEP 2181(II)(B). The specific information in the specification regarding the algorithm associated with the processing system that makes this limitation allowable when analyzed in conjunction with the rest of the claim elements includes, but is not limited to, the description of the method carried out by the processing system which can be found in applicant’s specification in para. [0012]-[0049] and [0097]-[0100].
Claim 34
Regarding claim 34, Fournier teaches the image data encoding system comprising a processing system, wherein the processing system is configured to: a) receive image data of a scene; b) determine a principal axis of a projection model for projecting the scene onto a two-dimensional grid of pixels; and c) determine, for each pixel projected from the scene, a deflection metric indicative of an angle between the principal axis and a projection ray through said pixel; wherein the system is characterized in that the processing system is further configured to: d) encode the deflection metric as a data value associated with each pixel as projection data.
However, neither Fournier, nor Sun, nor Sekii, nor Baele, nor a combination teaches the corresponding algorithm of the processing system which can be found in applicant’s specification in para. [0012]-[0049] and [0097]-[0100].
Claims 35-40 and 42-43 are similarly allowable due to their dependence upon allowable claim 34.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to KYLA G ALLEN whose telephone number is (703)756-5315. The examiner can
normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 4:30pm 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,
John Villecco can be reached on (571) 272-7319. 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.
/Kyla Guan-Ping Tiao Allen/
Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights