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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
1. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/20/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
2. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
3. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,080,013 B2 (herein referred to as Tang). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because
Regarding claim 1, Tang discloses A method for estimating depth of a scene: capturing a first image of the scene via one or more sensors associated with a first agent (claim 1 - col. 15, lines 2-5);
selecting one or more second images from a group of previously captured images of the scene, each second image of the one or more second images satisfying a depth criteria, each image of the group of previously captured images being captured prior to the first image (claim 1 - col. 15, lines 6-10); and
estimating the depth of the scene based on the first image and the one or more second images (claim 1 - col. 15, lines 11-12).
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 2 of Tang.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 3 of Tang.
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 4 of Tang.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 5 of Tang.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 6 of Tang.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 9 of Tang.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 10 of Tang.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 11 of Tang.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 12 of Tang.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 13 of Tang.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 14 of Tang.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 15 of Tang.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 18 of Tang.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been analyzed and rejected as per claims 19 and 10 of Tang.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has been analyzed and rejected as per claims 20 and 11 of Tang.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as per claims 20 and 12 of Tang.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 13 of Tang.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 14 of Tang.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as per claim 18 of Tang.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. 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)(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.
6. Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8, 10-12, 15 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ren et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,094,072 B2.
Regarding claim 1, Ren discloses A method for estimating depth of a scene: capturing a first image of the scene via one or more sensors associated with a first agent (col. 4, line 59 – At 402, the system receives an image input; col. 9, lines 56-59 – The camera module 1080 may capture a still image or moving images…the camera module 1080 may include one or more lenses, image sensors, image signal processors, or flashes);
selecting one or more second images from a group of previously captured images of the scene, each second image of the one or more second images satisfying a depth criteria, each image of the group of previously captured images being captured prior to the first image (col. 5, lines 9-12 – “the dataset includes a large number of predefined or labelled scenes or scene categories. The scene or scene categories are further labelled based on their associated depth range” – where the depth range defines a depth criteria used for the scene group selection); and
estimating the depth of the scene based on the first image and the one or more second images (col. 2, lines 12-15 – “classifying the input image into a depth range of a plurality of depth ranges, and determining a depth map of the image by applying depth estimation based on the depth range into which the input image is classified”; col. 4, line 65 – col. 5, line 6 – “At 404, the system classifies the input image into one of a plurality of depth ranges. The system may classify the image into a depth range by classifying the image into a predefined scene (e.g., the sky, an iceberg, a room). Since a scene may have an association with a particular or pre-defined depth range (e.g., sky has a highest depth range, a room scene has a relatively low depth range), the exact depth range of the input image can be inferred from the scene categories.”; col. 5, lines 19-20 – “the system may classify the image into a predefined scene”).
Regarding claim 3, Ran discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein one or more of characteristics of the group of previously captured images are different from one or more characteristics of the first image” (as cited in the rejection of claim 1, the input image can be classified into different scenes; and the group recite images from different depth ranges citing a sky, iceberg, a room, and these all have different characteristics; and if the input image has a sky or iceberg in it, then images in the group are not as same as the input as sky or iceberg characteristics don’t stay same; and at least they differ by pose and light (daylight)).
Regarding claim 4, claim 4 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Ren discloses “The method of claim 1, wherein each second image of the one or more second images satisfies the depth criteria based on a respective amount of respective depth information in the second image being greater than a threshold” (as cited in the rejection of claim 1, Ren teaches of the depth range defines a depth criteria, each range is between minimum and maximum, which defines a threshold of greater than the minimum depth).
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. Claims 2, 7, 9, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,094,072 B2.
Regarding claim 2, claim 2 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the group of previously captured images are captured by one or more second agents different from the first agent”. Ren as cited in the rejection of claim 1 teach using a dataset of different image scenes (reference images), but do not explicitly teach the dataset being captured by one or more agents different from the first agent. However, examiner here asserts that it is very well known in the art of creating a dataset of images from multiple other sources (OFFICIAL NOTICE TAKEN). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use well known teaching of using an image dataset created by other sources in the invention of Ren. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use well known teaching of using an image dataset created by other sources in the invention of Ren, as it saves time and is cost-efficient.
Regarding claim 7, claim 7 recites “The method of claim 1, further comprising controlling an action of the first agent based on the estimated depth” (Ren in background section (col 1, lines 55-59) – teaches application of accurate depth estimation from the captured scene include car automation….self-driving applications). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use well known teaching of using depth estimation as taught by Ren, to control a vehicle such as a car.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 7.
10. Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ren et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,094,072 B2, and further in view of Bhardwaj et al., “U.S. Patent No. 9,594,774 B2.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the group of previously captured images are stored at a remote server”. Ren as cited in the rejection of claim 1 teach using a dataset of different image scenes (reference images), but do not explicitly teach of storing at a remote server. However, examiner here asserts that it is very well known to store reference images at a remote server; and further cites Bhardwaj to teach evidentiary teachings. Bhardwaj teaches reference databases for storing reference images (col. 3, lines 10-12; col. 3, lines 10-11) and further teaches centralized or distributed databases, or associated caches and servers; and cloud-based storage systems (col. 14, lines 8-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use remote server to save reference images as taught by Bhardwaj in the invention of Ren. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use remote server to save reference images as taught by Bhardwaj in the invention of Ren, because using a remote server to save images protects data from device loss, frees up local storage space.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 has been similarly analyzed and rejected as per citations/arguments made in the rejection of claim 6.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Manav Seth whose telephone number is (571) 272-7456. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz, can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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:/Awww.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.
/Manav Seth/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
July 29, 2026
Prosecution Insights