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 .
Double Patenting
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 obviousness-type 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 LongL 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 1.32(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will
determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled
out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all
requirements are auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp. Claims 2, 9, 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,923. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the cited claims teach identical or close to identical limitation where it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify and be able to perform similar functions taught by the limitation in the cited claims on the two applications.
The following table illustrates the conflicting claim pairs:
Current Application
(18/820,198)
2
9
16
Patent (12,102,923)
7
1
1
The following table illustrates a comparison of independent claim 2, 16 of the present application 18/820,198 against independent claims 1, 7 of Patent 12,102,923:
Current Application (18/820,198)
Patent (12,102,923)
9. A system comprising:
one or more computer processors; one or more computer memories; and a set of instructions incorporated into the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving an input candidate normal map;
performing an integration on the input candidate normal map;
generating a reconstructed candidate normal map based on a performing of a differentiation on the integration of the input candidate normal map;
determining a first reconstruction error based on a comparison of the input candidate normal map to the reconstructed candidate normal map; and
determining a normal map format for the input candidate normal map, the determining of the normal map format comprising generating flipped input candidate normal map based on a flipping of the input candidate normal map, determining a second reconstruction error, the second reconstruction error being for the flipped input candidate normal map, and
performing a comparison of the first reconstruction error and the second reconstruction error.
2. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, causes the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operation comprising:
receiving an input candidate normal map;
performing an integration on the input candidate normal map;
generating a reconstructed candidate normal map based on a performing of a differentiation on the integration of the input candidate normal map;
determining a first reconstruction error based on a comparison of the input candidate normal map to the reconstructed candidate normal map; and
determining a normal map format for the input candidate normal map, the determining of the normal map format comprising generating a flipped input candidate normal map based on a flipping of the input candidate normal map,
determining a second reconstruction error, the second reconstruction error being for the flipped input candidate normal map, and performing a comparison of the first reconstruction error and the second reconstruction error.
A system comprising:
one or more computer processors; one or more computer memories; and a set of instructions incorporated into the one or more computer memories, the set of instructions configuring the one or more computer processors to perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving an input candidate normal map;
generating a reconstructed candidate normal map based on a performance of a mathematical differentiation on an integration of the input candidate normal map;
determining a reconstruction error based on a comparison of the input candidate normal map to the reconstructed candidate normal map;
determining an authenticity of the input candidate normal map based on the reconstruction error being within a configurable threshold; and
determining, based on the determining of the authenticity, a normal map format for the input candidate normal map, wherein the determining a normal map format comprises choosing, for the integration, a tangent space associated with a first normal map format, determining a first additional reconstruction error for the input candidate normal map using the tangent space,
flipping a y-axis direction for normal vectors within the input candidate normal map, wherein the flipped y-axis vectors are associated with a second normal map format, determining a second additional reconstruction error for the flipped input candidate normal map, and associating the input candidate normal map with either the first normal map format or the second normal map format based on a comparison of the first additional reconstruction error and the second additional reconstruction error.
7. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a set of instructions that, when executed by one or more computer processors, perform operations, the operations comprising:
receiving an input candidate normal map;
generating a reconstructed candidate normal map based on a performance of a mathematical differentiation on an integration of the input candidate normal map;
determining a reconstruction error based on a comparison of the input candidate normal map to the reconstructed candidate normal map;
determining an authenticity of the input candidate normal map based on the reconstruction error being within a configurable threshold; and
determining, based on the determining of the authenticity, a normal map format for the input candidate normal map, wherein the determining a normal map format comprises choosing, for the integration, a tangent space associated with a first normal map format,
determining a first additional reconstruction error for the input candidate normal map using the tangent space,
flipping a y-axis direction for normal vectors within the input candidate normal map, wherein the flipped y-axis vectors are associated with a second normal map format, determining a second additional reconstruction error for the flipped input candidate normal map, and associating the input candidate normal map with either the first normal map format or the second normal map format based on a comparison of the first additional reconstruction error and the second additional reconstruction error.
Regarding Claim 2 is rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Regarding Claim 9 is rejected under non-statutory double patenting.
Regarding Claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 9 is rejected based on similar analyses.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-15 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 10-15 depend on a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (CRM) claim 8. However, most likely, claims 10-15 are dependent on the system claim 9.
Furthermore, dependent claims 17-21 are dependent on the method claim 15. However, claim 15 is a system claim. Most likely, claims 17-21 are dependent on the method claim 16 instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
All current claims 2-21 could be in a condition for allowance. However, the application is rejected under a non-statutory double patenting.
Claims 2-21 can be allowed if Applicant files a terminal disclaimer overcome the Double Patenting rejection above.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons of a condition for allowance:
Regarding independent claims 2, 9 and 16, the closest prior art references the examiner found are Stenger et al. (U.S. 2012/0287247 A1 has been made of record as teaching: receiving an input candidate normal map (Stenger, Fig. 6a, [0009]); performing an integration on the input candidate normal map (Stenger, [0037]); generating a reconstructed candidate normal map based on a performing of a differentiation on the integration of the input candidate normal map (Stenger, Fig. 7, [0010],[0105],[0106], [0117]) recited in independent claims 2, 9 and 16.
However, the closest prior art made of record fails to teach or fairly suggest alone
or in reasonable combination (in consideration of the claim as a whole) the limitations.
"determining a normal map format for the input candidate normal map, the determining of the normal map format comprising generating a flipped input candidate normal map based on a flipping of the input candidate normal map, based on a flipping of the input candidate normal map, determining a second reconstruction error, the second reconstruction error being for the flipped input candidate normal map, and
performing a comparison of the first reconstruction error and the second reconstruction error" recited in independent claims 2, 9 and 16.
“wherein the input candidate normal map encodes a differential of a manifold, and the integration of the input candidate normal map produces the manifold” recited in dependent claims 3, 10, 17.
The dependent claims 3-8, 10-15 and 17-21 are allowanced because they are depended on the independent/parent claims 2, 9 and 16.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior arts made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure Aminlou et al. (U.S. 2019/0349598 A1) and Leung et al. (U.S. 2013/0148851 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KHOA VU whose telephone number is (571)272-5994. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00- 4:00.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at 571-272-7794. 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.
/KEE M TUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2611
/KHOA VU/Examiner, Art Unit 2611