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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the present application, with claims 1, 10, and 18 being independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 26 September 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 appears as though it should recite “minimizes the vertex costs, line segment costs, and vector path costs”, since the previous portion of the claim outlines the different costs and the last limitation seeks to minimize the costs set forth in the claimed limitation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 1, when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to:
Are the determined line segments used in the claim?
the scope of determining...cornerness scores corresponding to portions of the one or more paths at a set of vertices by comparing the portions to different shapes including at least at least a corner shape. How do the portions of the one or more paths at a set of vertices relate to the determined line segments from the one or more paths along boundaries of segmented regions of the raster image? Do the one or more paths go through the set of vertices? Are the vertices related to the paths? The specification appears to set forth that the line segments and set of vertices represent boundaries of the segmented regions of the raster image, see for instance, paragraph 27. Are a certain number of verticies required? For instance, if the set of vertices contained one or two vertices, how would the shape be compared?
The relationship between the cornerness scores and the portions of the paths at the set of vertices. Is each portion of the paths of the one or more portions of the path compared to different shapes, such that a likeliness score is generated for each shape? The disclosure sets forth in paragraph 52 generating “cornerness scores (e.g., confidence scores) indicating the likelihood that a set of vertices of a path belongs to a corner. Specifically, the path simplification system 102 generates the cornerness scores to indicate a comparison of shapes of portions of the path correspond to a specific set of shapes. More specifically, because the input path includes lines and/or curves connected in one or more possible ways, the path simplification system 102 determines whether curves/lines meet smoothly (e.g., in a straight line or curve) or with a sharp transition (e.g., a corner)”. ‘Paragraph 54 goes on to recite “the path simplification system 102 compares a shape 606 formed by the portions of the input path 600 connected at the key vertex 602 to a plurality of different shapes. For instance, the path simplification system 102 compares the shape 606 to at least a corner shape 608 to determine a similarity of the shape 606 to a corner shape 608. In addition, in some embodiments, the path simplification system 102 also compares the shape 606 to one or more additional shapes, such as an arc shape 610 and a straight line shape 612.... In response to comparing the shape 606 to the different shapes, the path simplification system 102 generates a cornerness score 614 to indicate the likelihood that the shape 606 formed by the portions of the input path 600 fits to one of the shapes”. Paragraph 117 of the spec sets forth “generating a cornerness score for the vertex in response to determining a likelihood that the first portion of the path and the second portion of the path form a corner at the vertex in response to a comparison of the first portion of the path and the second portion of the path to the different shapes”.
What constitutes and what is meant by “fitting...a plurality of candidate vector paths to input paths corresponding to pairs of the set of vertices”. Is a plurality of candidate vector paths fitted to each input path? To the plurality of input paths? And how do the input paths correspond to the set of vertices? Are they related to the paths at said vertices? It is also unclear as to if the fitted portion is used in the claim, since the fitted portion of the claim does not appear to be used. It is used in claim 7.
What is meant by minimizes costs according to the cornerness scores. What constitutes minimizing costs, costs of what? And how are those costs minimized according the cornerness scores? Costs are primarily discussed with respect to fig. 9, which illustrates that vertex costs, vector path costs, and line segment costs are determined and a “dynamic programming algorithm is utilized to select a single path of connected line segments and/or candidate vector paths that minimize the sum of the costs”, see paragraph 90. Cost functions themselves are discussed in paragraphs 76-90. The system “uses a cornerness score c for each key vertex to generate the vertex costs”, see for instance, paragraph 76. The system “utilizes the function g to map a cornerness score into a cost compatible with line segment costs 912”, which are determined “for the line segments as 3.9 + [Symbol font/0x64] [Symbol font/0xB7] E, where E is the squared error of a fit of a line segment to a portion of an input path and [Symbol font/0x64] is a constant”, see for instance, paragraphs 86 and 87. The system “utilizes the function g to map a cornerness score into a cost compatible with...the vector path costs 914”, which are determined “for the candidate vector paths 906 including cubic Bezier curves as
4
B
+
δ
∙
E
+
∑
v
ν
V
G
1
ν
. In particular 4B represents a fixed costs depending on a resulting candidate Bezier curve”, see for instance, paragraphs 86 and 88. Taking the corresponding disclosure into account, the scope of the claimed limitations remain unclear, because it is not clear as to what constitutes the costs and how they are being minimized according to the cornerness scores.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are therefore also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that of the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 5, when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to how claim 5 fits in with claim 1 from which it depends, because claim 5 refers back to “wherein the fitting the plurality of candidate vector paths to the plurality of line segments and the set of vertices comprises” and the section of claim 1 to which claim 5 references recites “fitting...a plurality of candidate vector paths to input paths corresponding to pairs of the set of vertices”. Did applicant intend for section of claim 1 to recite language similar to that of claim 5? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner is interpreting the language in claim 1 to mirror that of claim 5.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are therefore also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that of the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 8, when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes determining, for a vertex of the set of vertices, a first cost corresponding to a first parameter of a first continuity configuration for the vertex; determining, for the vertex of the set of vertices, a second cost corresponding to a second parameter of a second continuity configuration for the vertex. What is a continuity configuration, as claimed? And how are the first and second costs determined according to a respective continuity configuration. Paragraph 67 sets forth “the continuity configurations 710 include constraints on one or both end points of the Bezier curve (e.g., on one or both vertices in the key vertex pair 700) based on whether each of the end points should have C0 or G1 continuity”. Paragraph 68 sets forth how the system uses parameters representing continuity configurations to generate candidate vector paths. Paragraph 76 sets forth “the cornerness score results in a pair of costs for each key vertex...representing the costs corresponding to C0 and G1 continuities at the key vertex”. The scope of the claim remains unclear when read in light of the corresponding disclosure, because a) in the claim the costs are associated with the generically recited parameters, whereas in the disclosure, the costs are associated correspond to the continuities themselves at the key vertex, b) is the vertex in the set of vertices a key vertex, c) the claim has the costs corresponding to a parameter of a continuity configuration for the vertex in claim 8, claim 1 minimizes costs according to cornerness scores, and the disclosure, ties the continuity configuration to the generation of candidate vector paths. Are the vertex costs associated with the previously determined candidate paths in claims 1 and 7, or are they associated with the portions of paths at a set of vertices being compared to different shapes? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
With respect to claims 10 and 18, when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to:
the scope of determining...cornerness scores corresponding to portions of the one or more paths at a set of vertices by comparing the portions to different shapes including at least at least a corner shape. How do the portions of the one or more paths at a set of vertices relate to the determined line segments from the one or more paths along boundaries of segmented regions of the raster image? Do the one or more paths go through the set of vertices? Are the vertices related to the paths? The specification appears to set forth that the line segments and set of vertices represent boundaries of the segmented regions of the raster image, see for instance, paragraph 27. Are a certain number of verticies required? For instance, if the set of vertices contained one or two vertices, how would the shape be compared?
The relationship between the cornerness scores and the portions of the paths at the set of vertices. Is each portion of the paths of the one or more portions of the path compared to different shapes, such that a likeliness score is generated for each shape? The disclosure sets forth in paragraph 52 generating “cornerness scores (e.g., confidence scores) indicating the likelihood that a set of vertices of a path belongs to a corner. Specifically, the path simplification system 102 generates the cornerness scores to indicate a comparison of shapes of portions of the path correspond to a specific set of shapes. More specifically, because the input path includes lines and/or curves connected in one or more possible ways, the path simplification system 102 determines whether curves/lines meet smoothly (e.g., in a straight line or curve) or with a sharp transition (e.g., a corner)”. ‘Paragraph 54 goes on to recite “the path simplification system 102 compares a shape 606 formed by the portions of the input path 600 connected at the key vertex 602 to a plurality of different shapes. For instance, the path simplification system 102 compares the shape 606 to at least a corner shape 608 to determine a similarity of the shape 606 to a corner shape 608. In addition, in some embodiments, the path simplification system 102 also compares the shape 606 to one or more additional shapes, such as an arc shape 610 and a straight line shape 612.... In response to comparing the shape 606 to the different shapes, the path simplification system 102 generates a cornerness score 614 to indicate the likelihood that the shape 606 formed by the portions of the input path 600 fits to one of the shapes”. Paragraph 117 of the spec sets forth “generating a cornerness score for the vertex in response to determining a likelihood that the first portion of the path and the second portion of the path form a corner at the vertex in response to a comparison of the first portion of the path and the second portion of the path to the different shapes”.
What constitutes and what is meant by “fitting...a plurality of candidate vector paths to input paths corresponding to pairs of the set of vertices”. Is a plurality of candidate vector paths fitted to each input path? To the plurality of input paths? And how do the input paths correspond to the set of vertices? Are they related to the paths at said vertices?
What is meant by minimizes costs according to the cornerness scores. What constitutes minimizing costs, costs of what? And how are those costs minimized according the cornerness scores? Costs are primarily discussed with respect to fig. 9, which illustrates that vertex costs, vector path costs, and line segment costs are determined and a “dynamic programming algorithm is utilized to select a single path of connected line segments and/or candidate vector paths that minimize the sum of the costs”, see paragraph 90. Cost functions themselves are discussed in paragraphs 76-90. The system “uses a cornerness score c for each key vertex to generate the vertex costs”, see for instance, paragraph 76. The system “utilizes the function g to map a cornerness score into a cost compatible with line segment costs 912”, which are determined “for the line segments as 3.9 + [Symbol font/0x64] [Symbol font/0xB7] E, where E is the squared error of a fit of a line segment to a portion of an input path and [Symbol font/0x64] is a constant”, see for instance, paragraphs 86 and 87. The system “utilizes the function g to map a cornerness score into a cost compatible with...the vector path costs 914”, which are determined “for the candidate vector paths 906 including cubic Bezier curves as
4
B
+
δ
∙
E
+
∑
v
ν
V
G
1
ν
. In particular 4B represents a fixed costs depending on a resulting candidate Bezier curve”, see for instance, paragraphs 86 and 88. Taking the corresponding disclosure into account, the scope of the claimed limitations remain unclear, because it is not clear as to what constitutes the costs and how they are being minimized according to the cornerness scores.
The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed invention.
Claims depending thereon do not cure all of the noted deficiencies and are therefore also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that of the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claim 20, when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, as currently drafted, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes determining, for the set of vertices, pairs of costs corresponding to different continuity configurations according to the cornerness scores. What is a continuity configuration, as claimed? And how are the pairs of costs determined according to a different continuity configurations. Paragraph 67 sets forth “the continuity configurations 710 include constraints on one or both end points of the Bezier curve (e.g., on one or both vertices in the key vertex pair 700) based on whether each of the end points should have C0 or G1 continuity”. Paragraph 68 sets forth how the system uses parameters representing continuity configurations to generate candidate vector paths. Paragraph 76 sets forth “the cornerness score results in a pair of costs for each key vertex...representing the costs corresponding to C0 and G1 continuities at the key vertex”. The scope of the claim remains unclear when read in light of the corresponding disclosure, because a) the claim determines a pair of costs corresponding to different continuity configurations according to the cornerness score, whereas in the disclosure, the cornerness score results in a pair of costs for each key vertex....representing the costs corresponding to C0 and G1 continuities at the key vertex, b) how does a key vertex relate to the set of vertices?, c) the claim has the costs corresponding to different continuity configurations according to the cornerness score, claim 18 minimizes costs according to cornerness scores, and the disclosure, ties the continuity configuration to the generation of candidate vector paths. Are the vertex costs associated with the previously determined candidate paths in claim 18, or are they associated with the portions of paths at a set of vertices being compared to different shapes? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US Patent 11,698,788 to Batra et al. teaches Path Simplification for Computer Graphics Applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights