Detailed Action
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 102
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 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 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)(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.
3. Claims 1-6, 10,13,14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feilong Yan et al., ( hereafter Feilong), “Flower Reconstruction from a Single Photo” EUROGRAPHICS 2014, published 2014
As to claim 1, Feilong teaches A method of characterizing features of an image (Abstract, A semi-automatic method for reconstructing flower models from a single photograph): the method comprising:
accessing a template contour associated with the image(page 442 left col., 2nd par., use the cone as an initial surface and iteratively refine the rotating curve. The refinement is based on the aforementioned assumption that different petals have similar geometric shape,… i.e. Hence, the projections of the same template contour plotted at different locations of the underlying surface should closely approximate contour cp for different petals p);
comparing the template contour and an extracted contour of the image based
on a plurality of distances between locations on the template contour and extracted
contour points of the extracted contour(page 445 left col., 2nd par., , With the target points of v found on all contours, the location L’v is computed through minimizing the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation
∑
p
M
p
I
'
v
-
d
p
(
v
)
2
where lv denote the local coordinates for a given vertex v on the boundary of the template mesh; the matrix Mp project the template mesh to the location of petal p on the image plane, Iv’ the new local coordinate of the vertex v, and dp(v) the target point for vertex v on each cp);
wherein the plurality of distances are weighted based on overlap of the locations
on the template contour with a blocking structure in the image(page 443, section 4. 5, , 2nd par., , last sentence, 3rd par., last sentence: Once the occlusion relationship is determined, we assign a weight to each point on the petal contour. Visible points have weights of 1.0, whereas the weights of occluded ones gradually drop to 0 based on their distances to the closest visible point. The weight of each target point dp(v) on the contour is also taken into account); and
based on the comparing, determining a matching geometry and/or a matching
position of the template contour with the contour of the image( page 443, left col., , the equation in the last line of the second paragraph, fitting of the contour to the extracted contour points in the image , where the fitting of the contour is computed through minimizing the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation
∑
p
M
p
I
'
v
-
d
p
(
v
)
2
).
As to claim 2, Feilong teaches the plurality of distances is further weighted based on the locations on the template contour (page443, left col. equation 1, the template mesh is deformed using mean value geometry encoding [KS06], which preserves the
original geometric features of the surfaces. That is, the problem is formulated as minimizing:
Energy = wgeo∗Egeo+wcon∗Econ
where Egeo is the geometric preserving energy that maintains the geometric features of the mesh. Further Egeo represents the geometric weighting which depends on the locations of the template contour.)
As to claim 3, Feilong teaches the determining the matching position comprises placing the template contour in various locations on the image, and selecting the matching position from among the various locations based on the comparing (page 443, left col., 2nd par., the fitting of the contour to the extracted contour points in the image , where the fitting of the contour is computed through minimizing the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation
∑
p
M
p
I
'
v
-
d
p
(
v
)
2
Selecting the matching position from among the various locations corresponds to selecting the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points that minimize the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation shown above ).
As to claim 4, Feilong teaches determining the matching geometry comprises generating various geometries of the template contour on the image and selecting the matching geometry from among the various geometries based on the comparing (page 443, left col., 2nd par., move vertex v to a new location l’v so that the projections Mpl’v are close to the petal contour cp for all petals p. To achieve this goal, first compute a target point dp(v) for vertex v on each cp. This is done by first estimating the tangent of the projected template contour at location Mplv, and then searching the nearest intersection between cp and the 2D plane perpendicular to the tangent. With the target points of v found on all contours, the location L is computed through minimizing the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points, the minimizing the sum of squared distances is obtained comparing how close Mpl’v and dp(v) are).
As to claim 5, Feilong teaches, wherein the comparing comprises determining similarity between the template contour and the extracted contour points based on a combination sum of the weighted distances (as discussed above sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation
∑
p
M
p
I
'
v
-
d
p
(
v
)
2
.
The minimization operator measures how close
M
p
I
'
v
a
n
d
d
p
v
a
r
e
.
).
As to claim 6, Feilong teaches the plurality of distances is further weighted based on a weight map associated with the template contour (page 443, section 4. 5, , 2nd par., , last sentence, 3rd par., last sentence a weight to each point on the petal contour. Visible points have weights of 1.0, whereas the weights of occluded ones gradually drop to 0 based on their distances to the closest visible point. Similarly in the joint fitting step, the weight of each target point dp(v) on the contour is also taken into account.)
As to claim 10, Feilong teaches the plurality of distances correspond to edge placement (EP) gauge lines normal to the template contour (page 443, left col., 2nd par, move vertex v to a new location l’v so that the projections Mplv are close to the petal contour cp for all petals p. To achieve this goal, we first compute a target point dp(v) for vertex v on each cp. This is done by first estimating the tangent of the projected template contour at location Mplv, and then searching the nearest intersection between cp and the 2D plane perpendicular to the tangent.)-
As to claim 13, Feilong teaches determining a matching geometry or a matching position of the template contour relative to the extracted contour points comprises translation, scaling, and/or rotation of the template contour relative to the extracted contour points ( Fig.9d, page 444, section 4.6 right col. 2nd par , This contour serves as a template for detecting the tip locations of the remaining petals using Chamfer matching [TLO10]. A 2D radial searching space θ,d is used for Chamfer matching, where θ determines the orientation of the template and d is the distance between the tip of the template and the center o. Rotate the template about the flower center o and translate it to different distance to the center o, before measuring the matching scores. see Fig.9(d)).
As to claim 14, Feilong teaches determining a metrology metric based on an adjusted geometry or position of the template contour relative to the extracted contour(page 443, left col., 2nd par, move vertex v to a new location l’v so that the projections Mplv are close to the petal contour cp for all petals p. To achieve this goal, we first compute a target point dp(v) for vertex v on each cp. This is done by first estimating the tangent of the projected template contour at location Mplv, and then searching the nearest intersection between cp and the 2D plane perpendicular to the tangent).
As to claim 16, Feilong teaches wherein the comparing comprises accessing blocking structure weights for locations on the blocking structure, wherein the blocking structure weights follow user defined function, and wherein the blocking structure weights are determined based on an intensity profile of pixels in the image that form the blocking structure( page 443, section 4.5, right col., 2nd par., Once the occlusion relationship is deter-mined, we assign a weight to each point on the petal contour. Visible points have weights of 1.0, whereas the weights of occluded ones gradually drop to 0 based on their distances to the closest visible point. it is known that, in digital imaging, a "visible point" (or pixel) is fundamentally determined by its pixel intensity (brightness) and color values)
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 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.
4. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feilong, “Flower Reconstruction from a Single Photo in view of Igarashi et al., (hereafter Igarashi), US 20050185862 A1, pub. 08/25/2005.
As to claim 17, Feilong teaches accessing a template contour associated with the image(page 442 left col., 2nd par., use the cone as an initial surface and iterative ly refine the rotating curve. The refinement is based on the aforementioned assumption that different petals have similar geometric shape,… i.e Hence, the projections of the same template contour plotted at different locations of the underlying surface should closely approximate contour cp for different petals p);
comparing the template contour and an extracted contour of the image based
on a plurality of distances between locations on the template contour and extracted
contour points of the extracted contour(page 445 left col., 2nd par., , With the target points of v found on all contours, the location L’v is computed through minimizing the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation
∑
p
M
p
I
'
v
-
d
p
(
v
)
2
where lv denote the local coordinates for a given vertex v on the boundary of the template mesh; the matrix Mp project the template mesh to the location of petal p on the image plane, Iv’ the new local coordinate of the vertex v, and dp(v) the target point for vertex v on each cp);
wherein the plurality of distances are weighted based on overlap of the locations
on the template contour with a blocking structure in the image(page 443, section 4. 5, , 2nd par., , last sentence, 3rd par., last sentence: Once the occlusion relationship is determined, we assign a weight to each point on the petal contour. Visible points have weights of 1.0, whereas the weights of occluded ones gradually drop to 0 based on their distances to the closest visible point. The weight of each target point dp(v) on the contour is also taken into account); and
based on the comparing, determining a matching geometry and/or a matching
position of the template contour with the contour of the image( page 443, left col., , the equation in the last line of the second paragraph, fitting of the contour to the extracted contour points in the image , where the fitting of the contour is computed through minimizing the sum of squared distances between the projections of the vertex v and the corresponding target points which is given by equation
∑
p
M
p
I
'
v
-
d
p
(
v
)
2
).
It is noted that Feilong does not specifically teach “A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause to the computer system to”
On the other hand in the same filed of endeavor the feature extraction method uses shape recognition on the flower's contour to extract the petal count disclosed by Igarashi teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause to the computer system to at least (claim 21 a machine readable medium storing thereon a computer program).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the technique of storing a computer program that case the computer to excite the steps taught by Igarash in order to store and execute the method claim 1 of Feilong.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to transfer the method of Feilong in remote locations using internet or storing in a removable computer readable media, thus maximize electronically transferability and portability of the method taught by Feilong.
Claim 19 is rejected the same as claim 6 except claim 19 is directed to a computer program claim . Thus , the analysis applied to claim 6 above is also applicable to claim 19.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claim 20 is allowed.
6. Claims 7-9,11-12,15,18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claim.
to the third mask.
7. Regarding claim 7 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the following limitation obvious:
“wherein a total weight for each of the plurality of weighted distances is determined by multiplying a weight associated with the template contour by a corresponding weight associated with the blocking structure.”
8. Regarding claim 9 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the following limitation obvious:
“ wherein the comparing comprises :accessing blocking structure weights for locations on the blocking structure; and determining a total weight for each location on the template contour based on the blocking structure weights and weights associated with corresponding locations on the contour that overlap with the blocking structure.”
9. Regarding claim 11 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the following limitation obvious:
“wherein the comparing comprises: adjusting weights associated with corresponding locations on the template contour that overlap with the blocking structure; and determining a total weight for each location on the contour based on the blocking structure weights and the adjusted weights associated with corresponding locations on the contour that overlap with the blocking structure.”
10. Regarding claims 15 and 18 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the following limitation obvious:
‘wherein the blocking structure comprises a portion of the image that represents a physical feature in a layer of a semiconductor structure, the physical feature blocking a view of a portion of a feature of interest in the image because of its location in the layer of the semiconductor structure relative to the feature of interest, the feature of interest being a feature from which the contour points are extracted”
11. Regarding claim 20 no prior art is found to anticipate or render the following limitation obvious:
determination of a total weight for each location on the contour based on the blocking structure weights and weights associated with corresponding locations on the contour that overlap with the blocking structures; determination of a coarse similarity score based on a weighted sum of the plurality of distances multiplied by the total weights; and repetition of the determination of the total weight and of the coarse similarity score for multiple geometries or positions of the template contour relative to the extracted contour points to determine an optimized coarse position of the template contour relative to the extracted contour points; adjustment of the weights associated with the corresponding locations on the contour that overlap with the blocking structures; determination of a total weight for each location on the contour based on the blocking structure weights and the adjusted weights associated with corresponding locations on the contour that overlap with the blocking structures; determination of a first fine similarity score based on a weighted sum of the plurality of distances multiplied by the total weights; determination of a second fine similarity score based on a weighted sum of the plurality of distances multiplied by the total weights only for unblocked locations on the contour that do not overlap with the blocking structures; and repetition of the determination of the adjustment of the weights, determination of the total weight for each location on the contour based on the blocking structure weights and the adjusted weights, and the determination of first and second fine similarities for multiple geometries or positions of the template contour relative to the extracted contour points to determine an optimized fine position of the template contour relative to the extracted contour points; and based on the comparison, determine a matching geometry or a matching position of the template contour with the extracted contour points from the image.”
12. Claims 8 and 12 are objected because they are dependent of the objected claim independent claims7 and 11 respectively.
Prior art not used in rejections but pertinent to the claims or disclosure.
“METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING THE RELATIVE OVERLAY SHIFT OF STACKED LAYER”, US 20100208935 A1, pub.08/19/2010, to Arnz et al., disclosed :
A method is provided for determining the relative overlay shift of stacked layers, said method comprising the steps of: a) providing a reference image including a reference pattern that comprises first and second pattern elements; b) providing a measurement image of a measurement pattern, which comprises a first pattern element formed by a first one of the layers and a second pattern element formed by a second one of the layers; c) weighting the reference or measurement image such that a weighted first image is generated, in which the first pattern element is emphasized relative to the second pattern element; d) determining the relative shift of the first pattern element on the basis of the weighted first image and of the measurement or reference image not weighted in step c); e) weighting the reference or measurement image such that a weighted second image is generated, in which the second pattern element is emphasized relative to the first pattern element; f) determining the relative shift of the second pattern element on the basis of the weighted second image and of the measurement or reference image not weighted in step e); g) determining the relative overlay shift on the basis of the relative shifts determined in steps d) and f) (see abstract, Figs. 16-17).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mekonen Bekele whose telephone number is (469) 295-9077.The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM to 6:50 PM Eastern Time.
If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Eng, George can be reached on (571) 272-7495.The fax phone number for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-237-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished application is available through Privet PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have question on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.
/MEKONEN T BEKELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights