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 Amendment
Claim 1 stands cancelled. Claims 2-21 are newly added. Claims 2-21 are pending.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2, 8-11, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0036113 A1 to Fisher et al., hereinafter, “Fisher” in view of US 2021/0237768 A1 to Tateishi et al., hereinafter, “Tateishi”.
Claim 2. (New) Fisher teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: [0008] for creating composite images by utilizing a camera
maintaining, in memory, a composite image that [0023] store corresponding image data
a) includes data from each image of two or more images from a sequence of images that depict a physical area and [0023] the camera across a target area during a scanning procedure to capture and store corresponding image data
b) was generated by concatenating, from the two or more images from the sequence of images, [0023] combine the still frames generated by the scanning manager to thereby create composite images
content from the corresponding image, [0023] corresponding image data
determining, using the composite image, one or more properties of an object depicted in at least some of the two or more images; [0047] FIG. 6 (target object)
Fisher fails to explicitly teach determining, using the composite image, one or more properties of an object depicted in at least some of the two or more images. Tateishi, in the field of object detection using a composite image, teaches [0075] the object detector 37 similarly detects objects represented in images based on the composite image… The object detector 37 may also estimate the relative speed of an object with respect to the vehicle 10, based on changes in the size of the object during tracking in images over elapsing time.
Examiner interprets size of the object to be a property of the object.
and performing one or more actions using the one or more properties. [0075] the object detector 37 similarly detects objects represented in images based on the composite image… The object detector 37 may also estimate the relative speed of an object with respect to the vehicle 10, based on changes in the size of the object during tracking in images over elapsing time.
Examiner interprets estimate the relative speed to be an action.
Fisher is in the field of creating a composite image. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fisher with the teachings of Tateishi [0008] to correctly estimate the distance between a moving object and outside features surrounding the moving object.
Claim 8. (New) Tateishi teaches wherein determining the one or more properties comprises: determining, using a size of the object in the composite image, the one or more properties of the object depicted in at least some of the two or more images. [0075] The object detector 37 may also estimate the relative speed of an object with respect to the vehicle 10, based on changes in the size of the object during tracking in images over elapsing time. Examiner interprets relative speed to be a property.
Claim 9. (New) Tateishi teaches wherein determining the one or more properties comprises determining, using a height of the object in the composite image, a predicted speed of the object. [0075] the object detector 37 similarly detects objects represented in images based on the composite image… The object detector 37 may also estimate the relative speed of an object with respect to the vehicle 10, based on changes in the size of the object during tracking in images over elapsing time. Examiner interprets size of the object to be the property of the object.
Claim 10. (New) Fisher teaches wherein: the sequence of images comprises a sequence of frames; [0054] still frames 614 to thereby produce adjacent still images 614
and the two or more images comprise two or more frames from the sequence of frames. [0034] a series of selected still frames of the foregoing captured video data 422 from scanning manager 416, to thereby produce a composite still image
Claim 11. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 2. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 17. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 8. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 18. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 9. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 19. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 10. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 20. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 2. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 12 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0036113 A1 to Fisher et al., hereinafter, “Fisher” in view of US 2021/0237768 A1 to Tateishi et al., hereinafter, “Tateishi” and in further view of US 2018/0084989 A1 to Su.
Claim 3. (New) Fisher fails to explicitly teach maintaining the composite image that has a first dimension that has the same size as a second dimension for each of the two or more images. Su, in the field of creating a composite image, teaches wherein maintaining the composite image comprises maintaining the composite image that has a first dimension that has the same size as a second dimension for each of the two or more images. [0073] the plurality of images can be combined to form a single composite image with a same size of each of the plurality of image
Fisher is in the field of creating a composite image. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fisher with the teachings of Su [0006] to obtain high quality images.
Claim 12. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 3. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim 21. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 3. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0036113 A1 to Fisher et al., hereinafter, “Fisher” in view of US 2021/0237768 A1 to Tateishi et al., hereinafter, “Tateishi” and in further view of US 2016/0086033 A1 to Molin et al.. hereinafter, “Molin”.
Claim 6. (New) Fisher fails to explicitly teach determining, using data across an axis of the composite image that includes the content from each of the two or more images, the one or more properties of the object depicted in at least some of the two or more images. Molin, in the field of creating a composite (stitched) image, teaches wherein determining the one or more properties comprises: determining, using data across an axis of the composite image that includes the content from each of the two or more images, the one or more properties of the object depicted in at least some of the two or more images. [0007] generating a composite image by merging the first and second images, and analyzing the composite image to detect one or more features indicative of the object in the composite image
Fisher is in the field of creating a composite image. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fisher with the teachings of Molin [0005] to improve object location in image data.
Claim 15. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 6. See the above analysis and rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2014/0036113 A1 to Fisher et al., hereinafter, “Fisher” in view of US 2021/0237768 A1 to Tateishi et al., hereinafter, “Tateishi” and in further view of US 2012/0243802 A1 to Fintel et al., hereinafter, “Fintel”.
Claim 7. (New) Fisher fails to explicitly teach determining, using the composite image and a frame rate at which the sequence of images was captured, one or more properties of an object depicted in at least some of the two or more images. Fintel wherein determining the one or more properties comprises: determining, using the composite image and a frame rate at which the sequence of images was captured, one or more properties of an object depicted in at least some of the two or more images. [Abstract] forming a composite image from a sequence of digital images…automatically analyze two or more of the digital images in the sequence of digital images to determine a rate of motion for the moving object; determining a frame rate responsive to the rate of motion for the moving object
[0036] In the FIG. 4 embodiment, the foregoing segments of video data 422 may be captured and stored by video camera 110 in a series of contiguous and periodic video frames. For example, in certain embodiments, the foregoing video frames may occur at a rate of thirty frames per second. However, in other embodiments, video data 422 may be captured and stored using any effective organization, timing sequence, or implementational technique. In the FIG. 4 embodiment, each of the video frames of video data 422 may include a complete set of picture element (pixels) that correspond to a particular target object 112.
Fisher is in the field of creating a composite image. Thus, before the effective filing date of the present application, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fisher with the teachings of Fintel [0008] provide improved image quality of a final composite image containing moving objects.
Claim 16. (New) Reviewed and analyzed in the same way as claim 7. See the above analysis and rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 13 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.
The innovation that makes claims 4 and 13 allowable is “determining, using data across a third dimension of the composite image that is orthogonal to the first dimension, the one or more properties of the object depicted in at least some of the two or more images”.
Claims 5 and 14 are allowable because they are dependents of claims 4 and 13, respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DELOMIA L GILLIARD whose telephone number is (571)272-1681. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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 at (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.
/DELOMIA L GILLIARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights