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 .
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.
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 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 Longi, 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,238,259. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because regarding independent claims 1, 12 and 14 of the application. Claims 1, 10 and 11 of instant patent fully discloses the limitations of the claims in the application. Dependent claims 2-11, 13 and 15 of the application are compared with dependent claims 2-9 and 12 of instant patent ’259.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jin et al (11, 575,882) in view of Shan et al (11,605,174).
Regarding claims method claims 1 and 14, non-transitory computer readable medium claim 11, and apparatus claim 12 Jin discloses a method (note col. 7 lines 42-50, disclose Jin disclose hierarchy of steps described as a method), non-transitory computer readable (note col. 7 lines 26-35, examiner interprets implemented as software to describe non-transitory computer readable medium) and apparatus (note col. 3 lines 30-35, system of fig. 1a and col. 7 lines 26-35, examiner interprets implemented as hardware to describe apparatus)
A first step of acquiring a first image having disparity information and refocus information (note fig. 1a, block 110, col. 5 lines 3-23, light field image, discloses shifting parameter corresponding to depth information); and
A second step of inputting the first image or the disparity information and the refocus information into a machine learning model (note fig. 1a block 20, artificial intelligence model and col 6 lines 1-3, LF image are input to artificial intelligence model), and of generating a second image having an in-focus position different from an in-focus position of the first image based on the refocus information (note fig. 1a, block 140 and col. 6 lines 4-10, LF images are converted to layers of stack, layer of stacks col. 7 lines 40-45 describe as second LF images)
Wherein the information is information on a distance between the position of
the first image and the position of the second image (note col. 8 lines 14-16, lines cite plurality of layer stacks in which a shifting parameter indicating distance information between at least one object included in a first LF image, depth information corresponds to distance). Jin discloses acquiring shifting parameters which corresponds to disparity information. Jin does not clearly disclose acquiring refocus information and refocus information into machine learning model. Shan discloses information acquiring refocus information and refocus information into machine learning model (note col. 6 lines 37-39, cost all in focus examiner interprets as refocus). Jin and Shan are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include acquiring refocus information and refocus information into machine learning model in the system of Jin as evidenced by Shan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides improvement to slower processing of smaller cameras col. 4 lines 35-45. It would have been obvious to combine Shan with Jin to obtain the invention as specified by claims 1, 11, 12 and 14.
As to claim 14, feature of ground truth examiner refers to col. 12 lines 29-40, reference image as ground truth image, matching technique is a technique of setting one reference image among the plurality of images obtained by capturing at least one object at different viewpoints, searching for the same region corresponding to one region in the reference image from a plurality of other images, and obtaining depth information included in an image.
Regarding method (note col. 7 lines 42-50, disclose Jin disclose hierarchy of steps described as a method) claim 3 Jin discloses,
Wherein the first image is stereo images of the same object captured at two different viewpoints (note col. 5 lines 4-5, LF images two different viewpoints), two disparity images generated by recording light fluxes that have passed through two different pupil areas in an optical system, or a single image made by combining the stereo images or the two disparity image (note Jin col. 5 lines 6-10, combining stereo images).
Regarding method (note col. 7 lines 42-50, disclose Jin disclose hierarchy of steps described as a method) claim 8 Jin discloses,
Wherein the second step concatenates two viewpoint images acquired from the first image in a channel direction and inputs a concatenated result into the machine learning model (note Jin fig. 1a, 110 into 20 and col. 6 lines 5-10, LF image input into artificial intelligence model, LF images are layers of stacks into the model).
Regarding method (note col. 7 lines 42-50, disclose Jin disclose hierarchy of steps described as a method) claim 9 Jin discloses,
Wherein the second step fixes one of the two viewpoint images acquired from the first image, shifts the other, concatenates the two viewpoint images in a channel direction, and inputs a concatenated result into the machine learning model (note Jin, col. 6 lines 15-35, shifting parameter applied to plurality of layers stacks prior to input to the model).
Regarding method (note col. 7 lines 42-50, disclose Jin disclose hierarchy of steps described as a method) claim 10 Jin discloses wherein the distance is an amount based on a moving amount of an imaging plane of an image pickup apparatus when the image pickup apparatus acquires the second image that is made by capturing the same object as that of the first image. Jin does not clearly disclose at a different in-focus position. Shan discloses at different in focus position (note col. 6 lines 37-39, cost all in focus examiner interprets as different in focus position). Jin and Shan are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include different in-focus position in the system of Jin as evidenced by Shan. The suggestion/motivation for doing so provides improvement to slower processing of smaller cameras col. 4 lines 35-45. It would have been obvious to combine Shan with Jin to obtain the invention as specified by claim 10.
Regarding system claim 15 execute a plurality of tasks including a transmitting task configured to transmit, to the image processing apparatus, a request relating to execution of a process on the first image, wherein the image processing apparatus includes at least one processor or circuit configured to execute a plurality of tasks including: a receiving task configured to receive the request (note col. 10 lines 4-11, receive instructions).
Related Prior Art
Seki (11,531,862) inputting the first image or the disparity information and the refocus information into a machine learning model (note fig. 2 block 104 and col. 5 lines 26-40).
Claims are rejected under double patenting.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter for dependent claims 2 and 13. Prior art could not be found for the features wherein the machine learning model includes a first machine learning model and a second machine learning model, and wherein the second step includes the steps of: inputting two viewpoint images acquired from the first image into the first machine learning model and extracting the disparity information; and inputting the disparity information and the refocus information into the second machine learning model and generating the second image. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art. Claims 6-7 depend on claim 2. Therefore, are also objected.
Regarding claim 4, prior art could not be found for the features wherein the second step concatenates, in a channel direction, the first image or at least one of feature maps acquired by inputting the first image into the machine learning model, and the refocus information on an image having the distance between the in-focus position of the first image and the in-focus position of the second image as a pixel value, and processes a concatenated result in the machine learning model. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Regarding claim 5, prior art could not be found for the features wherein the second step concatenates, in a channel direction, a feature map relating to the disparity information on the first image and the refocus information on an image having the distance between the in-focus position of the first image and the in-focus position of the second image as a pixel value, and processes a concatenated result in the machine learning model. These features in combination with other features could not be found in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
June 27, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights