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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraphs 54 and 138, “opencv” should be “OpenCV”.
Paragraph 109, “pairis” should be “pair is”
Paragraph 112, “matrixis” should be “matrix is”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 15, and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the a difference” should be “the difference” or “a difference”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 11, 16, and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “of the another image” should be “of the image” or “of another image”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jik et al. (KR 20170066749 A), found in the IDS and hereinafter referred to as Jik, and Ren et al. (US 20240104941 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ren.
In regards to claim 1, Jik discloses a method, comprising: receiving: a standard calibration image; and a distortion calibration image of a display of an extended reality device (Paragraph 11, The document discloses that the display captures the reference pattern displayed along with a predetermined reference pattern); performing calibration point detection on the standard calibration image and the distortion calibration image to obtain a plurality of calibration point pairs, wherein each of the plurality of calibration point pairs comprises a first calibration point indicating a location of a portion of the standard calibration image and a second calibration point indicates a location, of the same portion of the standard calibration image, in the distortion calibration image (Paragraph 55, Discloses that the intersection points on the grid patterns are matched to each other from the calibration image and the distorted calibration image); and causing, based on the determined distortion coefficients of the one or more of the plurality of calibration point pairs, the extended reality device to adjust display of another image (Paragraph 11, Discloses that the image is corrected based upon the locations of the points).
Jik does not explicitly disclose obtaining, for each of the plurality of calibration point pairs, a to-be-fitted distortion relationship associated with the first calibration point and the second calibration point and comprising a to-be-fitted distortion coefficient; performing, for each of one or more of the plurality of calibration point pairs, numerical fitting on the to-be-fitted distortion relationship to determine a distortion coefficient, in the to-be-fitted distortion relationship, associated with the first calibration point and the second calibration point.
However, Ren does disclose obtaining, for each of the plurality of calibration point pairs, a to-be-fitted distortion relationship associated with the first calibration point and the second calibration point and comprising a to-be-fitted distortion coefficient (Paragraphs 25, 52, and 60, Each paragraph discloses the use of a distortion coefficient to show the difference between two different points); performing, for each of one or more of the plurality of calibration point pairs, numerical fitting on the to-be-fitted distortion relationship to determine a distortion coefficient, in the to-be-fitted distortion relationship, associated with the first calibration point and the second calibration point (Paragraphs 25 and 52, Discloses that the coordinates are numerically fitted based upon the distortion coefficient).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine these two arts as it would have led to a predictable increase in accuracy. Jik does not mathematically factor in the distortion using coefficients while Ren does disclose the use of mathematically factoring in the distortion via coefficients. This specific mathematical function allows for a more rigorous and accurate function to track and place the calibration points which increases accuracy. As such, it would be prima facie obvious to combine.
In regards to claim 2, Jik discloses wherein the performing calibration point detection on the standard calibration image and the distortion calibration image comprises: performing calibration point detection on the standard calibration image to obtain a plurality of first calibration points (Paragraph 33, The disclosed gird pattern comprises a variety of points taken from the calibration image); performing calibration point detection on the distortion calibration image to obtain a plurality of second calibration points (Paragraph 40, The disclosed shooting pattern corresponds to a grid of points from the distorted image); determining a plurality of first positional relationships between the plurality of first calibration points (Paragraphs 55-58, Discloses matching the grid pattern and shooting pattern in paragraphs 55-56 along with an error vector for the positions in 57-58); determining a plurality of second positional relationships between the plurality of second calibration points (Paragraphs 55-58, Discloses matching the grid pattern and shooting pattern in paragraphs 55-56 along with an error vector for the positions in 57-58); and matching, based on the plurality of first positional relationships and the plurality of second positional relationships and to form the plurality of calibration point pairs, each one of the plurality of first calibration points with a different one of the plurality of second calibration points (Paragraphs 55-58, Discloses matching the grid pattern and shooting pattern in paragraphs 55-56 along with an error vector for the positions in 57-58).
In regards to claims 12 and 17, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 13 and 18, they are similar to claim 2, and they are similarly rejected.
Claims 3, 11, 14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jik et al. (KR 20170066749 A), found in the IDS and hereinafter referred to as Jik, and Ren et al. (US 20240104941 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ren, as applied to claims 1-2, 12-13, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Tian et al. (CN 114549658 A), found in the IDS and hereinafter referred to as Tian.
In regards to claim 3, neither Ren nor Jik explicitly disclose the elements of this claim.
However, Tian does disclose wherein the performing calibration point detection on the standard calibration image further comprises: generating a first standard partial image by triggering a slide window to slide on the standard calibration image in a first direction (Paragraphs 211-218, Paragraph 214 discloses the use of a fixed window that slides across the image); determining, based on grayscale values of pixels in the first standard partial image, a first overall grayscale value of the first standard partial image (Paragraphs 211-218, Discloses that this window is used to determine a grayscale value for the region); generating a second standard partial image by triggering the slide window to slide on the standard calibration image in a second direction different than the first direction (Paragraphs 211-218, Discloses that a different fixed widow slides in the opposite direction or a second direction); determining, based on grayscale values of pixels in the second standard partial image, a second overall grayscale value of the second standard partial images (Paragraphs 211-218, Discloses that this window is used to determine a grayscale value for the second region); and extracting, based on a difference between the second overall grayscale value and the first overall grayscale value, the first calibration point of one of the plurality of calibration point pairs (Paragraphs 211-218, Discloses that it determines a singular pixel as the center of the target area as a corner point and that this performed multiple time to produce multiple corner points which would correspond to the calibration points).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Jik and Ren with the teachings of Tian as it would to a predictable increase in the accuracy of the process. The process of Tian specifically focuses on the color of the image with the focus on grayscale, and it further analyzes how each section’s color is distorted. Adding a process that further factors aspects of the image which are not focused on in the processes of Jik and Ren allows for an additional avenue for measuring the distortion and determining further calibration points beyond the rigid grid of Jik. As such, it allows for further compensatory actions to rectify the distortions which would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy and render it prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 11, Ren discloses wherein the adjusting the display of the another image comprises: performing, based on the determined distortion coefficients of the one or more of the plurality of calibration point pairs, anti-distortion processing on a plurality of pixels in the another image in the another image to determine a distortion corrected position of each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraphs 25 and 52, Discloses that the coordinates are numerically fitted based upon the distortion coefficient and processes the image to account for said distortion).
However, Ren does not disclose and moving, in the another image, each of the plurality of pixels to the distortion correction position of the each of the plurality of pixels.
Tian does disclose and moving, in the another image, each of the plurality of pixels to the distortion correction position of the each of the plurality of pixels (Paragraph 259, Discloses that the coordinates of the pixels in the image are adjusted and moved to correspond with a corrected image to eliminate distortion).
In regards to claim 14, it is similar to claim 3, and it is similarly rejected.
In regards to claims 16 and 20, they are similar to claim 11, and they are similarly rejected.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-10, 15, and 19 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 20190019341 A1) uses Jacobian matrices to a similar effect as the application, but it is deficient in the lack of mention of Hessian matrices. As such, it is not relied upon in this application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. 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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights