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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on March 27, 2025. Claims 2-20 have been canceled. Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
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 and 21-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,397. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims are broader in scope than the U.S. Patent claims.
Each of the instant application base claims (1, 27 and 34) is broader in scope than the corresponding claims (1, 9 and 18) in the U.S. Patent. Taking claims 1 and 27 in the instant application, as an exemplary, to compare to claims 1 and 9 in the U.S. Patent (see comparison table below). Additionally, the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (claim 34) in the instant application recites similar features cited in the system claim (claim 18) in the U.S. Patent, despite claim type. The rest of the instant application claims recite similar features as those cited in the U.S. Patent.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit elements when the remaining elements perform as before. A person of ordinary skill could have arrived at the present claims by omitting the details of said U.S. Patent claims. See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decided January 16, 1963 (“Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same function as before”).
An exemplary table to show similarity among the conflicting claims.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,125,397
1. An aerial vehicle, comprising:
a stereo image sensor configured to capture stereo images of an environment around the aerial vehicle; and
a processing apparatus configured to:
determine a predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the stereo images;
determine a location of an object based on the stereo images; and
determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle.
1. An aerial vehicle, comprising:
a sensor detecting objects in an environment around the aerial vehicle, the sensor comprising:
a first image sensor configured to generate first visual output signals conveying first visual information within a first field of view of the first image sensor, and
a second image sensor configured to generate second visual output signals conveying second visual information within a second field of view of the second image sensor; and
a processing apparatus comprising:
a predicted motion component,
a predicted imaging component, and
a predicted path component;
wherein the processing apparatus is configured to:
obtain physical model information regarding the aerial vehicle;
determine a predicted path of the aerial vehicle with the predicted motion component;
determine a location of an object with the predicted imaging component;
predict a path of the object, with the predicted path component, based on the first visual information and the second visual information; and
determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle.
27. A method comprising:
capturing, by a stereo image sensor, stereo images of an environment around an aerial vehicle;
determining a predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the stereo images;
determining a location of an object based on the stereo images; and
determining if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle.
9. A method comprising:
detecting, with a sensor, objects from an environment around an aerial vehicle;
generating, with a first image sensor, first visual output signals conveying first visual information within a first field of view;
generating, with a second image sensor, second visual output signals conveying second visual information within a second field of view;
predicting, with a predicted motion component, a predicted vehicle path of the aerial vehicle;
determining, with a predicted imaging component, a location of one of the objects from the environment around the aerial vehicle;
determining physical model information regarding motion of the aerial vehicle;
predicting a path of the object with a predicted path component based on the first visual information and the second visual information; and
determining if the aerial vehicle and the one of the objects will intersect based on the predicted vehicle path of the aerial vehicle, motion of the vehicle, and the location of the one of the objects.
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.
Claims 1, 27 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Said claims are directed to an abstract idea, and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, for the reasons set forth below.
Claim 1 is directed to an aerial vehicle (machine). Said claim falls within the four statutory categories defined under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The following steps are considered mental processes (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)III):
determining a predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the stereo images;
determining a location of an object based on the stereo images; and
determining if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle.
For instance, a person can determine a predicted path and a location of an object based on image received from a camera and then determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object. Additionally, it is noted that even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As result, the limitations recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? No
The additional elements are:
a stereo image sensor
capture a stereo image
an aerial vehicle
processing apparatus
The additional elements such as the stereo image sensor, aerial vehicle and processing apparatus are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite any action taken by the aerial vehicle based on the determination of a potential intersection, such as controlling movement, altering a flight path or avoiding an object. The claim merely determines information but does not apply them to the aerial vehicle. Accordingly, the additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the judicial exception or improve the functions of the aerial vehicle.
The capture a stereo image function is considered to be insignificant extra pre solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? No
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a stereo image sensor is a well-known sensing component and the processing apparatus, recited at a high-level of generality, is a generic computer processor capable of performing routine data processing functions. The claim does not recite any unconventional algorithm, specific image processing technique, or technical improvement. The claim merely automates a known human activities – observing an environment, predicting movement, locating objects and determining potential collision with an object – using generic computing components. Accordingly, the claim lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Capturing stereo images of an environment around the aerial vehicle is an insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood, routine and conventional (WURC). For example, the courts have recognized that gathering data or information is well routine and conventional as indicated in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; LI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745; and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See MPEP2106.05(d).
Claim 27 is directed to a method (process). Said claim falls within the four statutory categories defined under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The following steps are considered mental processes (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)III):
determining a predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the stereo images;
determining a location of an object based on the stereo images; and
determining if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle.
For instance, a person can determine a predicted path and a location of an object based on image received from a camera and then determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object. Additionally, it is noted that even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As result, the limitations recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? No
The additional elements are:
a stereo image sensor
capture a stereo image
an aerial vehicle
The additional elements such as the stereo image sensor and aerial vehicle are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite any action taken by the aerial vehicle based on the determination of a potential intersection, such as controlling movement, altering a flight path or avoiding an object. The claim merely determines information but does not apply them to the aerial vehicle. Accordingly, the additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the judicial exception or improve the functions of the aerial vehicle.
The capture a stereo image function is considered to be insignificant extra pre solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? No
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a stereo image sensor is a well-known sensing component. The claim does not recite any unconventional algorithm, specific image processing technique, or technical improvement. The claim merely automates a known human activities – observing an environment, predicting movement, locating objects and determining potential collision with an object – using generic computing components. Accordingly, the claim lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Capturing stereo images of an environment around the aerial vehicle is an insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood, routine and conventional (WURC). For example, the courts have recognized that gathering data or information is well routine and conventional as indicated in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; LI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745; and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See MPEP2106.05(d).
Claim 34 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (manufacture). Said claim falls within the four statutory categories defined under 35 USC § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea enumerated in the 2019 PEG, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon)? Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The following steps are considered mental processes (MPEP 2106.04 (a)(2)III):
determining a predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the stereo images;
determining a location of an object based on the stereo images; and
determining if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle.
For instance, a person can determine a predicted path and a location of an object based on image received from a camera and then determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object. Additionally, it is noted that even mental processes which may need the physical aids such as pen and paper can be still mental processes (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B)) and even the fact that the claimed invention is performing steps on a computer does not prevent the function from being a mental process (see MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)). As result, the limitations recite a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application? No
The additional elements are:
a stereo image sensor
obtain a stereo image
an aerial vehicle
one or more processors
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
The additional elements such as the stereo image sensor, an aerial vehicle, one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium are generic computer components, specified at a high level of generality and/or are generic tools used to implement the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into the practical application (see MPEP §2106.05(f)). The claim does not recite any action taken by the aerial vehicle based on the determination of a potential intersection, such as controlling movement, altering a flight path or avoiding an object. The claim merely determines information but does not apply them to the aerial vehicle. Accordingly, the additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the judicial exception or improve the functions of the aerial vehicle.
The obtain a stereo image function is considered to be insignificant extra pre solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Step 2B - Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (aka “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception? No
The additional elements, considered individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a stereo image sensor is a well-known sensing component, the one or more processors, recited at a high-level of generality, is a generic computer processor capable of performing routine data processing functions and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium is a generic computer storage components. The claim does not recite any unconventional algorithm, specific image processing technique, or technical improvement. The claim merely automates a known human activities – observing an environment, predicting movement, locating objects and determining potential collision with an object – using generic computing components. Accordingly, the claim lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Obtaining stereo images of an environment around the aerial vehicle is an insignificant extra solution activity that is well understood, routine and conventional (WURC). For example, the courts have recognized that gathering data or information is well routine and conventional as indicated in Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; LI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745; and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362-63, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. See MPEP2106.05(d).
Additionally, the dependent claims do not appear to include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehmadi et al “Nehmadi”, US-PGPub. No. 20160116912 in view of Loussides et al “Loussides”, US-PGPub. No. 20160027313.
As per claims 1, 27 and 34 , Nehmadi teaches a method, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph(s) [0098]; storage medium) and an aerial vehicle (Fig. 1 – element 106 “unmanned vehicle”, Paragraph(s) [0030]), comprising:
an image sensor configured to capture images of an environment around the aerial vehicle (Paragraph(s) [0035], [0045], [0064]; the image sensors (e.g., cameras) installed on the UV 106 may be installed to transmit video surveillance data to the communication device 104 of the user 102 in real time); and
a processing apparatus configured to:
determine a predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the images (Paragraph(s) [0036]; the UV 106 includes an image sensor 202, a Global Positioning System tracking unit 204 (hereinafter referred to as ‘GPS’), a transceiver 206, a control module 208, and an artificial intelligence module 210. Nehmadi further discloses in Paragraph [0049] any obstacle detected in the regions 302 and 304 is interpreted as an anticipated collision of the UV 106 with the obstacle. If there is any obstacle in the regions 302 and 304, the UV 106 based on a command received from the communication device 104 or automatically in the autonomous mode, determines a new route to avoid the collision);
determine a location of an object based on the image component (Paragraph(s) [0041], [0044]; the artificial cognitive system may also be used to avoid collisions with other UVs and with other operating, moving or stationary objects); and
determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the location of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle (Paragraph(s) [0041], [0054]; the UV 106 may operate in an autonomous mode. Under the autonomous mode the UV 106 is configured to self-identify its operating route based on the data retrieved by its image sensors and GPS sensors. Further, the autonomous mode of the UV 106 is configured to automatically override the remote-operation mode of the UV 106 under certain predefined conditions).
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches a stereo image sensor configured to capture stereo images (Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]; imaging sensors 124 can capture image sensor data of a terrain 130 for processing by the aircraft computer system 118 while the autonomous UAV 100 is airborne. The imaging sensors 124 may include one or more of: a downward-scanning LIDAR scanner, a video camera, a multi-spectral camera, a stereo camera system, a structure light-based 3D/depth sensor, a time-of-flight camera, a LADAR scanner, a RADAR scanner, or the like in order to capture image sensor data indicative of the terrain 130 and determine geometric information of one or more potential landing zones 132A, 132B, and 132C for the autonomous UAV 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides in order to provide more efficient way to facilitate remote-control operation of the unmanned vehicle (UV) under the autonomous mode to self-identify UV operating route based on the data retrieved by its image sensors and GPS sensors. Furthermore, the autonomous mode enables the UV to automatically override the remote-operation mode of the UV under certain predefined conditions (see Nehmadi - Paragraph(s) [0012]).
As per claims 21, 28 and 35, Nehmadi teaches wherein the location of the object includes a range of locations for the object, and wherein the range of locations is based on an accuracy of the image sensor.
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches a stereo image sensor (Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides as explained under the rejection of claim 1.
As per claims 22, 29 and 36, Nehmadi teaches wherein the predicted path of the aerial vehicle includes a predicted area for the aerial vehicle traveling along the predicted path, and wherein the predicted area is based on the accuracy of the image sensor (Paragraph(s) [0038], [0041-0042], [0048]).
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches a stereo image sensor (Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides as explained under the rejection of claim 1.
As per claims 23, 30 and 37, Nehmadi teaches wherein the processing apparatus is further configured to:
identify the object as a moving object based on the images (Paragraph(s) [0079]);
determine a predicted path of the moving object (Paragraph(s) [0070]); and
determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the moving object based on the predicted path of the moving object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle (Paragraph(s) [0049], [0054]).
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches stereo images (Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides as explained under the rejection of claim 1.
As per claims 24, 31 and 38, Nehmadi teaches wherein the processing apparatus is further configured to:
determine an object type for the object based on the images (Paragraph(s) [0079]);
determine a predicted path of the object based on the location of the object and the object type (Paragraph(s) [0035], [0064]); and
determine if the aerial vehicle will intersect with the object based on the predicted path of the object and the predicted path of the aerial vehicle (Paragraph(s) [0049], [0054]).
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches stereo images(Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides as explained under the rejection of claim 1.
As per claims 25, 32 and 39, Nehmadi teaches a motion sensor configured to detect motion of the aerial vehicle, wherein the processing apparatus is configured to determine the predicted path of the aerial vehicle based on the images and the detected motion of the aerial vehicle (Paragraph(s) [0035], [0044], [0070]).
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches stereo images (Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides as explained under the rejection of claim 1.
As per claims 26 and 33, Nehmadi teaches wherein the processing apparatus is further configured to:
generate a depth map based on the images (Paragraph(s) [0035], [0064]); and
determine the location of the object based on the depth map (Paragraph(s) [0039], [0078-0079]).
Nehmadi fails to expressly teach but Loussides teaches stereo images (Paragraph(s) [0012], [0023]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to combine the teachings of Nehmadi and Loussides as explained under the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454