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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim 21, is directed to a non-statutory category of invention, the claimed “A computer-readable storage medium” covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, the claim as a whole covers a non-transitory embodiments, which does not fall within the definition of a process, a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Amendments may be made to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to computer-readable storage medium.
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 1-15, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-7, recites “initial geometric figure…” and …”a static object in the initial Mesh”, however from the claim language it is not clear what kind of geometric figure and object are meant in relation to the Mesh. Further, Claim 1, line 7, recites “depth values…of pixel points”, from the claim language it is not clear what “depth values…of pixel points” mean, are the frames stereoscopic or what kind of depth is mean and how are these determined, is there a depth map/depth image involved or a gradient calculation. Hence rendering claims and its dependent claims 2-14, indefinite. Furthermore, same issues exists in independent claims 15 and 21, hence said rejection is also applicable to independent claims 15 (and its respective dependent claims 17-20) and 21.
Claim 2, line 4, recites “divide each quadrilateral”, however from the claim language it is not clear whether this represents a sub-division within the meaning of claim 1 or a different operation. Hence rendering claim 2 and its respective dependent claims indefinite. Furthermore, same issues exists in claim 17, hence said rejection is applicable to claim 17 and its respective dependent claims.
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 (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, and 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martins (NPL Document “Real-time video frame rate adaptation based on warping of edge-preserving meshes” herein after Martins, provided by the Applicant in the IDS filed on 10/30/2025).
As per claim 1, Martins discloses an image processing method (Martins, Fig. 1), comprising:
obtaining a first image and a second image, and calculating a motion vector based on the first image and the second image, wherein the first image and the second image are real frames of images (Martins, Fig. 1, shows reference frame and current frame, and further please see section 2.4, which discloses “Forward motion vectors to compute initial displacement”);
creating an initial Mesh of the second image, and determining a to-be- subdivided initial geometric figure corresponding to a static object in the initial Mesh, wherein the initial geometric figure has exactly two subdivision points, located on sides of the initial geometric figure, at most one subdivision point exists on each side of each initial geometric figure, and the subdivision points are determined based on depth values of pixel points in the initial geometric figure, and are edge pixel points of the static object (Martins, Fig. 1, Node, identification, Triangulation, and also please see section 2.1 and section 2.3);
performing mesh subdivision on each initial geometric figure based on two subdivision points of the corresponding initial geometric figure, to obtain a target Mesh of the second image, wherein in the target Mesh, a line connecting the two subdivision points of each initial geometric figure is a side of a target triangle, or a partial line segment on the line is a side of the target triangle, and the target triangle is a geometric figure obtained by division in the target Mesh (Martins, Fig. 1, Node, identification, Triangulation, and also please see section 2.1 and section 2.3); and
performing image warping on the second image based on the target Mesh and the motion vector, to generate a predicted frame of image corresponding to the first image and the second image (Martins, Fig. 1, Node displacement, and please see section 2.1).
As per claim 2, Martins further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the initial Mesh is a quadrilateral Mesh, and the initial geometric figure is a quadrilateral; and after the creating an initial Mesh of the second image, the method further comprises: normalizing the quadrilateral Mesh, to divide each quadrilateral into two triangles (Martins, Fig. 5, shows that the mesh comprise quadrilaterals divided into triangles, so at least resulting meshes are the same).
As per claim 4, Martins further discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising: setting depth information of each triangle in the target Mesh (Martins, section 2.5, Node displacement estimation).
As per claim 12, Martins further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the first image and the second image are rendered images (Martins, Fig. 1, shows rendering).
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 (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.
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(s) 15, 17-18, and 20-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martins (NPL Document “Real-time video frame rate adaptation based on warping of edge-preserving meshes” herein after Martins, provided by the Applicant in the IDS filed on 10/30/2025) and further in view of Georgis (US PGPUB 2023/0222677 A1).
As per claim 15, Martins discloses all the claim limitations as being explained above with respect to claim 1, except an electronic device, comprising:
one or more processors;
a memory; and
one or more computer programs, wherein the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory, and when the computer program is executed by the one or more processors, the electronic device is enabled to perform
Georgis discloses an electronic device (Georgis, Fig. 2:102), comprising:
one or more processors (Georgis, paragraph 63);
a memory (Georgis, paragraph 63); and
one or more computer programs, wherein the one or more computer programs are stored in the memory, and when the computer program is executed by the one or more processors (Georgis, paragraph 63),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martins teachings by implementing a processor to the system, as taught by Georgis.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for sequence stabilization of 3D point cloud frames using motion information (paragraph 2), as taught by Georgis.
As per claim 17, Martins in view of Georgis further discloses the electronic device according to claim 15, wherein the initial Mesh is a quadrilateral Mesh, and the initial geometric figure is a quadrilateral; and after the creating an initial Mesh of the second image, the electronic device is further enabled to perform: normalizing the quadrilateral Mesh, to divide each quadrilateral into two triangles (Martins, Fig. 5, shows that the mesh comprise quadrilaterals divided into triangles, so at least resulting meshes are the same).
As per claim 18, Martins in view of Georgis further discloses the electronic device according to claim 15, the electronic device is further enabled to perform: setting depth information of each triangle in the target Mesh (Martins, section 2.5, Node displacement estimation).
As per claim 20, Martins in view of Georgis further discloses the electronic device according to claim 15, wherein the first image and the second image are rendered images (Martins, Fig. 1, shows rendering).
As per claim 21, Martins discloses all the claim limitations as being explained above with respect to claim 1, except a computer-readable storage medium, comprising a computer program, wherein when the computer program is run on an electronic device,
Georgis discloses a computer-readable storage medium, comprising a computer program, wherein when the computer program is run on an electronic device (Georgis, Fig. 1:102, and paragraph 63),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Martins teachings by implementing a device to the system, as taught by Georgis.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for sequence stabilization of 3D point cloud frames using motion information (paragraph 2), as taught by Georgis.
Examiner’s Note: Any indication of allowable subject matter is being held in abeyance pending response to the rejection under 35 U.S.C 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights