DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. The amendment filed on 7/1/26 is entered and made of record.
III. Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-18 is/are rejected. Explanations will be provided below.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-18 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “determine a reference coordinate system for a detector for detecting feature points based on a relation between a result of detecting feature points in the first image and a result of detecting feature points in the second image” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of image alignment, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. There are no PCT associated with the current application.
[2] Response to Arguments
The arguments presented by the applicant have been considered and are found unconvincing.
The examiner stated:
PNG
media_image1.png
75
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The examiner disagrees. Ding et al. discloses
perform predetermined conversion processing on a first image including a subject to generate a second image (see figure 2 illustration below, view 1 is read as the first image, where it is employed to generate the 2nd image shown below, the pose estimation shape adjustment is read as the 2nd image, not the View 2 image, and is generated from View 1 image):
PNG
media_image2.png
584
923
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding arguments to the last limitation of claim 1, the applicant stated:
PNG
media_image3.png
100
567
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The limitations in claim 1 does not include ambiguities regarding the underlying 2D detector’s internal reference coordinate system matrix via mathematical inversion relationships. Ding et al. discloses determine a reference coordinate system for a detector for detecting feature points based on a relation between a result of detecting feature points in the first image and a result of detecting feature points in the second image (see figure 2 illustration above, the output is read as the reference coordinate system which detects feature points in the first image and a result of detecting feature points in the second image).
For reasons above the prior art rejections are maintained.
[3] 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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-16 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 17-18 do not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[4] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty.
[Editor Note: Applicable to any patent application subject to the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see 35 U.S.C. 100 (note) ). See 35 U.S.C. 102 (pre-AIA ) for the law otherwise applicable.]
(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.—A person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(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.
(b) EXCEPTIONS.—
(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.—A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if—
(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.
(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.—A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if—
(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;
(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or
(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (W. Ding, S. Li, G. Zhang, X. Lei and H. Qian, "Vehicle Pose and Shape Estimation Through Multiple Monocular Vision," 2018 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO), Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2018, pp. 709-715).
Regarding claim 1, Ding et al. discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that, upon execution of the stored instructions, are configured to:
perform predetermined conversion processing on a first image including a subject to generate a second image (see figure 2 illustration below, view 1 is read as the first image, where it is employed to generate the 2nd image shown below);
detect feature points of the subject from the first and second images (see figure 2 illustration below, feature points are detected in the first and second image); and
determine a reference coordinate system for a detector for detecting feature points based on a relation between a result of detecting feature points in the first image and a result of detecting feature points in the second image (see figure 2 illustration below, the output is read as the reference coordinate system which detects feature points in the first image and a result of detecting feature points in the second image):
PNG
media_image2.png
584
923
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 2, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, the reference coordinate system is determined based on a difference between a result of performing inverse conversion for the predetermined conversion processing on feature points detected from the second image and the result of detecting feature points in the first image (see figure 2 illustration below, also see equation 1 as the difference between Plabel and Poutput):
PNG
media_image4.png
133
523
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 3, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors perform association between the result of performing the inverse conversion for the predetermined conversion processing on the feature points detected from the second image and the result of detecting feature points in the first image, and determine the reference coordinate system based on a positional difference between the associated feature points (see equation 1 below, difference between Plabel and Poutput, where the Plabel and Poutput are difference between the feature points):
PNG
media_image5.png
191
836
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 4, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors detect feature points related to the subject, applies labels to the detected feature points, and associates the feature points based on the applied labels (see equation 1, Plabel is read as the applied labels, where Plabel is read as feature points of the applied labels).
Regarding claim 5, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors perform association between feature points having a shortest distance between coordinates of the feature points (see equation 4, the projection minimum where qk represents the projection error pose of keypoint k):
PNG
media_image6.png
204
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the one or more processors perform association between feature points having a minimum difference in a feature quantity or feature vector between feature points (see equation 4, the projection minimum where qk represents the projection error pose of keypoint k, qk is also read as the vector):
PNG
media_image6.png
204
476
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors further acquire coordinate system candidates, and wherein the one or more processors perform the inverse conversion for the predetermined conversion processing for each of the acquired candidates and determine the candidate having a minimum difference between detection results as the reference coordinate system (see equation 5 which minimizes the minimize an energy function defined for cross projections, which minimizes the plurality of views of the vehicle, where the two views are inversion of others, see illustration below):
PNG
media_image7.png
236
942
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 8, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the coordinate system candidates include coordinate systems having variable parameters, and wherein one or more processors calculate the parameters so that the difference between the detection results is minimized, and determine the reference coordinate system (equation 5 minimizes the difference between the two views, view 1 and view 2, which outputs the outputs, see illustration below):
PNG
media_image8.png
204
811
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors determine the reference coordinate system by further using truth values for coordinates of the feature points (see equation 1 and paragraph above it, where Plabel is read as the truth labels):
PNG
media_image9.png
107
538
media_image9.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 10, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors detect feature points related to the subject, and divide the detected feature points into a plurality of sets, and wherein the one or more processors determine the reference coordinate system for each set (see figure 6 illustration below, the feature points are divided into plurality of regions):
PNG
media_image10.png
304
649
media_image10.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 11, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors classify the first image into any one of a plurality of sets based on an imaging condition of the first image, and wherein the one or more processors determine the reference coordinate system for each of the classified sets (see figure 2, the view 1 is read as one of two imaging conditions, which is employ to generate the output in figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors enlarge or reduce the first image, perform the predetermined conversion processing on the enlarged or reduced first image, and generate the second image (see Semantic Keypoints Detection, second paragraph and figure 4 illustration below, where each hourglass network include plurality of image reductions):
PNG
media_image11.png
395
1079
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 13, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors generate the second image so that a predetermined resolution is obtained (see Semantic Keypoints Detection, second paragraph, global and local resolution are read as predetermined resolution).
Regarding claim 14. Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined conversion processing includes horizontal inversion, vertical inversion, translation, enlargement, reduction, rotation, shearing, trapezoidal conversion, and a combination thereof (see figure 4, include enlargements and reduction of image, see figure 2 the views are inversions of each other, see equation 4, R is read as rotation, T is read as the translation).
Regarding claim 15, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined conversion is a homography conversion (see figure 1 illustration below and Abstract):
PNG
media_image12.png
387
827
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 16, Ding et al. discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors select the first image as an image to be used in determining the reference coordinate system (see figure 2, the output is read as the reference coordinate system), and wherein, for the first image, an integrated value of differences between a result of performing inverse conversion for the predetermined conversion processing on feature points detected from the second image and the result of detecting feature points in the first image for different feature points is less than a predetermined value (see Hierarchical Wireframe Constraints, both view 1 and view 2 have 12 key points, where the predetermined value is 1 because the difference in the key points is zero which is less than 1):
PNG
media_image13.png
101
538
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claims 17 and 18 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1. In addition, deep learning training requires high performance computational hardware which requires plurality of processors.
This action is made final. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shorten 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 shorten statutory period, then the shorten 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 mailing date of the final action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 7/18/26
Prosecution Insights