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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0325628 A1) in view of Gausebeck et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0420437 A1).
As to claim 15, Dubey shows a system (i.e. architecture, Figs. 2 and 4 and paras. 32 and 59) comprising: a computing device having a processor and a memory (paras. 21 and 113), the computing device being configured to: receive an image 420 uploaded to the computing device (Fig. 4 and para. 60), where the image is of a scene having at least one wall (Fig. 4 and para. 27); processing the image using a segmenting model to produce a set of initial segment model results (Fig. 4 and para. 61); perform a wall segmentation based on the set of initial results (Fig. 4 and paras. 56 and 57); generate a final image mask (via mask application module 404/410, Fig. 4 and paras. 59, 62 and 66), generate a colorized image by applying color to the final image mask to paint the at least one wall (note that the color/style of the object has changed, Fig. 4 and paras. 67 and 70); and display the colorized image on a display of the computing device (Fig. 4 and para. 67).
Dubey does not show using a Segment-Anything Model (SAM) to produce a set of initial Segment-Anything model results.
Gausebeck shows using a Segment-Anything Model (SAM) to produce a set of initial Segment-Anything model results for wall segments (para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Dubey with those of Gausebeck because designing the system in this way allows the device to modify appearance of portions of the wall (para. 54).
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dubey et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0325628 A1) in view of Gausebeck et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0420437 A1) and Carmel et al. (US Pub. No. 2017/0372467 A1).
As to claim 16, Dubey as modified above by Gausebeck does not show that the computing device is further configured to validate the image before performing the wall segmentation on the set of initial SAM results, where the validating includes determining whether the image meets a threshold for image quality.
Carmel shows that a computing device is configured to validate an image, where the validating includes determining whether the image meets a threshold for image quality (i.e. blockiness, for example, Fig. 8 and para. 153).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Dubey as modified above further with those of Carmel because designing the system in this way allows the device to decrease blockiness (para. 153).
As to claim 17, Dubey shows a system (i.e. architecture, Figs. 2 and 4 and paras. 32 and 59) comprising a computing device having a processor and a memory (paras. 21 and 113), the computing device being configured to: receive an image 420 uploaded to the computing device (Fig. 4 and para. 60), where the image is of a scene having at least one wall (Fig. 4 and para. 27); processing the image using a segmenting model to produce a set of initial model results (Fig. 4 and para. 61); perform a wall segmentation based on the set of initial results (Fig. 4 and paras. 56 and 57); generate an image mask (via mask application module 404/410, Fig. 4 and paras. 59, 62 and 66); generate a colorized image by applying color to the image to paint the at least one wall (note that the color/style of the object has changed, Fig. 4 and paras. 67 and 70); and display the colorized image on a display of the computing device (Fig. 4 and para. 67).
Dubey does not show using a Segment-Anything Model (SAM) to produce a set of initial Segment-Anything model results.
Gausebeck shows using a Segment-Anything Model (SAM) to produce a set of initial Segment-Anything model results for wall segments (para. 54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Dubey with those of Gausebeck because designing the system in this way allows the device to modify appearance of portions of the wall (para. 54).
As to claim 16, Dubey as modified above by Gausebeck does not show that the computing device receives an edge map.
Carmel shows that a computing device receives an edge map (Figs. 7A and 7B and para. 124).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Dubey as modified above further with those of Carmel because designing the system in this way allows the device to provide a more effective way of compression quality (para. 124).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 – 14 and 19 – 25 are allowed.
Specifically, claim 1 recites “… performing segmentations of the processed image to generate a coarse wall mask; establishing a dynamic threshold of high confidence pixels to exclude small wall contours coordinates; performing a semi-random seed point generation along a horizontal axis of the processed image; running the processed image through a second pass of the segment-anything model to remove additional segments below predetermined acceptable thresholds for noise before establishing a final predicted wall…”.
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim is allowable.
Claims 2 – 14 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 19 recites “…the computing device being configured to: … perform a grayscale function on the image to generate a grayscale image; perform a transparency function on the image to generate an alpha gray image, where the alpha gray image represents the at least one shadow as an opaque region and represents the at least one highlight as a transparent region; perform a normalization function on the image to generate a re-gray image, where the normalization function includes measuring one or more values of at least one pixel of the image and normalizing the one or more values; generate a colorized image by applying a color to the final edge map and using the grayscale image, alpha gray image and re-gray image…”.
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim is allowable.
Claims 20 – 25 are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on claim 18.
Claim18 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.
Specifically, claim 18 recites that “… the computing device is further configured to: measure a first value of a brightness and a second value of a contrast of the image; and balance a color of the image using the first and second values.”
The prior art does not show this configuration; therefore, this claim contains allowable subject matter.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARL ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7448. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9AM - 5PM EST.
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, Ke Xiao can be reached at 571-272-7776. 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.
/CARL ADAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2627
Prosecution Insights