DETAILED ACTION
Contents
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 2
Conclusion 5
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 .
This action is responsive to applicant’s claim set received on 10/25/24. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
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 claimedinvention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leprince et al (US 2010/0232728 A1) in view of Knopp (US 2005/0031197 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Leprince teaches a method for registration of an ortho corrected image to a reference ortho corrected image, the method comprising the steps of: a) obtaining a first grid for creating the ortho corrected image from a raw match image and saving the grid (see 0039-0040, 0045); b) obtaining a second grid to match the ortho corrected image to the reference ortho corrected image (see 0094, 0098-0102, 0122); and d) conducting a single resample of the raw match image using the third grid to obtain a super registered image (see 0120, 0123, 0127). Leprince does not teach expressly c) adding the first and second grids together to obtain a third grid.
Knopp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches c) adding the first and second grids together to obtain a third grid (see 0119).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leprince to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Knopp. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance efficiency by enabling a transformation within a single, one-step operation (see 0119). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Leprince, while the teaching of Knopp continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claims 2-3, Leprince teaches Cubic Convolution, a Sinc Function, or a Modulation Transfer Function (see 0023);
carried out N times to obtain a stack of N super registered images, where N is an integer greater than 1 (see 0021, 0034, 0040, 0115, 0116).
Regarding claim 4, Leprince teaches a computing device comprising one or more processors and at least one storage medium, the at least one storage medium containing non-transitory computer-readable instructions for execution by the one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to perform a set of operations, the operations (see 0140) comprising: a) obtaining a first grid for creating the ortho corrected image from a raw match image and saving the grid (see 0039, 0040, 0045); b) obtaining a second grid to match the ortho corrected image to the reference ortho corrected image (see 0094, 0098-0102, 0122); and d) conducting a single resample of the raw match image using the third grid to obtain a super registered image (see 0120, 0123, 0127). Leprince does not teach expressly c) adding the first and second grids together to obtain a third grid.
Knopp, in the same field of endeavor, teaches c) adding the first and second grids together to obtain a third grid (see 0119).
It would have been obvious (before the effective filing date of the claimed invention) or (at the time the invention was made) to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Leprince to utilize the cited limitations as suggested by Knopp. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enhance efficiency by enabling a transformation within a single, one-step operation (see 0119). Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in the manner explained above using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a “fundamental” operating principle of Leprince, while the teaching of Knopp continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Regarding claim 5, Leprince teaches resampling method is Cubic Convolution, a Sinc Function, or a Modulation Transfer Function (see 0023);
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD PARK. The examiner’s contact information is as follows:
Telephone: (571)270-1576 | Fax: 571.270.2576 | Edward.Park@uspto.gov
For email communications, please notate MPEP 502.03, which outlines procedures pertaining to communications via the internet and authorization. A sample authorization form is cited within MPEP 502.03, section II.
The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6 CST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Moyer, can be reached on (571) 272-9523. 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.
/EDWARD PARK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights