CTNF 18/788,272 CTNF 82637 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-11 AIA The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 5, and 7 - 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Liu et al (US 2024/0346680, hereafter Liu) . As per claim 1 , Liu discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: generate, based on a camera position of a query image that is obtained by shooting a scene with a camera from the camera position (¶ 29), and three dimensional information regarding the scene (¶ 30), a projection image and a depth image that correspond to shooting from the camera position (¶ 31); and correct the camera position based on the depth image and a correspondence relationship between the query image and the projection image (¶ 31). As per claim 5 , Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: detects first image feature points included in the query image and second image feature points included in the projection image, and detect first corresponding points corresponding to both the first image feature points and the second image feature points (¶ 45). As per claim 7 , Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the three dimensional information is information representing the scene in three dimensions using a nonlinear implicit function (¶ 58 and 59). Regarding claim 8 , arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 8. Regarding claim 9 , arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 9 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 - 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Koppal (US 9,767,545) . As per claim 2 , Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 1. However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further: corrects an error in the depth image by performing depth image correction processing using the projection image and the depth image. In the same field field of endeavor, Koppal teaches wherein the one or more processors further: corrects an error in the depth image by performing depth image correction processing using the projection image and the depth image (column 6 lines 37 – 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Liu in view of Koppal. The advantage is improving depth images. As per claim 3 , Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 2. However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the depth image correction processing is processing in which a machine learning model is used that, upon receiving the projection image and the depth image as inputs, outputs a corrected depth image obtained by removing noise from the depth image, or both the corrected depth image and the projection image. In the same field of endeavor, Koppal teaches wherein the depth image correction processing is processing in which a machine learning model is used that, upon receiving the projection image and the depth image as inputs, outputs a corrected depth image obtained by removing noise from the depth image, or both the corrected depth image and the projection image (column 6 lines 37 – 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Liu in view of Koppal. The advantage is improving depth images. As per claim 4 , Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 3. However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the machine learning model is for acquiring a corrected depth image by receiving training data obtained by adding noise to a depth image and a projection image as inputs, and is obtained by performing machine learning using, as output training data, a camera position correction value that does not include noise obtained by inputting the corrected depth image. In the same field of endeavor, Koppal teaches wherein the machine learning model is for acquiring a corrected depth image by receiving training data obtained by adding noise to a depth image and a projection image as inputs, and is obtained by performing machine learning using, as output training data, a camera position correction value that does not include noise obtained by inputting the corrected depth image (column 6 lines 37 – 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Liu in view of Koppal. The advantage is improving depth images . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Jones et al (US 2018/0315221, hereafter Jones) . As per claim 6 , Liu discloses the information processing apparatus according to claim 5. However, Liu does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors further: acquires second corresponding points between the query image and the projection image using the corrected depth image and the first corresponding points corresponding to both the first image feature points and the second image feature points, calculates a correction value by performing processing for solving a PnP (Perspective-n-point) problem using the second corresponding points, if the correction value is larger than a preset threshold value, adds the correction value to an initial value of the camera position or a current camera position, and if the correction value is the threshold value or less, adopts a corrected camera position. In the same field of endeavor, Jones teaches wherein the one or more processors further: acquires second corresponding points between the query image and the projection image using the corrected depth image and the first corresponding points corresponding to both the first image feature points and the second image feature points, calculates a correction value by performing processing for solving a PnP (Perspective-n-point) problem using the second corresponding points, if the correction value is larger than a preset threshold value, adds the correction value to an initial value of the camera position or a current camera position, and if the correction value is the threshold value or less, adopts a corrected camera position (¶ 42 and 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as effectively filed to modify the invention Liu in view of Jones. The advantage is improving 3D reconstruction of images. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm. 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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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. /CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 2 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 3 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 4 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 5 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 6 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 7 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 8 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 18/788,272 Page 9 Art Unit: 2487
Prosecution Insights