DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/30/2026 has been entered. No claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to priority have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner cannot concur with Applicant’s assertion “the claim recitation of ‘encoding a maximum positive disparity and a minimum positive disparity into a header of a bitstream’ in fully supported by the provisional application, which provides explicit written description support for this limitation.”
Applicant provides citations from the provisional specification and asserts 1) “a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand parameters ‘through codec’ refers to placing such parameters in the structured overload of the bitstream (e.g., a header),” and 2) “the provisional, thus discloses both the identity of the parameters and the act of encoding them into the codec stream, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand encompass encoding into a header of a bitstream.” Disparity parameters in a header cannot be considered equivalent to “codec embedded information”. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the priority specification does not explicitly provide written description support for this limitation as shown by Applicant’s reliance on a person skilled in the art understanding that parameters in a specific location such as a codec would equate to disparity parameters in a header. Therefore, the 06/25/2012 effective filing date of the instant application is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of newly found reference during an updated search.
Examiner concurs the previously presented prior art fails to disclose or suggest the amended claim language. However, the Zhang reference presented in the amended rejection below describes detecting features in a stereo pair and computing respective disparities and a disparity range of the detected features. Therefore, combining Zhang with the previously presented combination of Jang and Park results in the 103 rejection of the amended claim language presented below.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 61/504,491, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The provisional application fails to support encoding a maximum positive disparity and a minimum negative disparity into a header of a bitstream. However, parent case 13/532,105 provides support through FIG. 10 and corresponding paragraph [0058]. Therefore, the effective filing date of the claims is 06/25/2012.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: amended claim language includes a footnote number. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, limitation “detect one or more features within a first image and a second image” is not fully supported by the specification as required by MPEP 2161.01(I). The specification fails to provide adequate support for a processor performing the specialized function of detecting one or more features in images. Paragraph [0024] of the specification defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed of result achieved. Paragraph [0038] describes various depths in an image corresponding to various objects in the image but does not describe how these objects are detected.
It should be noted that the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a) is not satisfied by stating that one of ordinary skill in the art could devise an algorithm to perform a specialized programmed function. For written description, the specification as filed must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor has possession of the claimed invention. An original claim may lack written description when the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently identify how the inventor has devised the function to be performed or result achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or process/steps for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient.) See MPEP 2161.01(I).
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-4 and 16-20 fall together accordingly.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 11-13, 15, and 18-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang et al. US 2011/0023066 A1, hereafter Jang, in view of Park et al. US 2010/0290483 A1, hereafter Park, further in view of Zheng et al. US 2013/0162641 A1, hereafter Zheng.
Regarding claim 1, Jang discloses a method (method and apparatus for generating 3-dimensional image data stream) [title] comprising:
capturing a first image with a first image sensor and a second image with a second image sensor (a left view image sequence and a right view image sequence, which are respectively photographed by a left view camera and a right view camera of the cameras 1542) [0197];
determining a maximum positive disparity (calculate a screen disparity of a provided 3D image content…disparity range in a 3D image may be expressed by using the minimum disparity information and the maximum disparity information in a 3D image content; screen disparity range of the 3D image may be determined; maximum disparity information in 3D image content (‘max_of_disparity’) may be defined as the low fatigue information (930)) [0147; 0150; 0177] between a first image and a second image (left view image and right view image are arranged in one picture) [0101]
determining a minimum negative disparity between the first image and the second image (calculate a screen disparity of a provided 3D image content…disparity range in a 3D image may be expressed by using the minimum disparity information and the maximum disparity information in a 3D image content; screen disparity range of the 3D image may be determined; minimum disparity information in 3D image content (‘min_of_disparity’)… may be defined as the low fatigue information (930)) [0147; 0150; 0177];
encoding the maximum positive disparity and the minimum negative disparity into a bit stream (low fatigue information of FIG. 9…described as the 3D image reproduction information; insert 3D image reproduction information into program guide information section 2240, generate transport stream 2260) [0074; FIG. 22];
encoding the first image into the bit stream (generate elementary stream of 3D image 2210, generate at least one transport stream packet 2250, generate transport stream 2260) [FIG. 22]; and
encoding the second image into the bit stream (generate elementary stream of 3D image 2210, generate at least one transport stream packet 2250, generate transport stream 2260) [FIG. 22].
However, Jang fails to explicitly disclose detecting one or more features within the first image and the second image; computing respective disparities of the detected features between the first image and the second image; encoding the maximum positive disparity and the minimum negative disparity into a header of a bit stream.
Park, in an analogous environment, discloses encoding the maximum positive disparity and the minimum negative disparity into a header of a bit stream (stereoscopic packet header may be formed as shown in FIGS. 7A to 7C; min of disparity 734, max of disparity 736) [0054; FIG. 7B].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determined min/max disparity in a header, as disclosed by Park, with the invention disclosed by Jang, the motivation being efficiency [0009].
Further Chen in an analogous environment, discloses detecting one or more features within the first image and the second image (detect features F1 in L S32, detect features F2 in R S33) [FIG. 3];
computing respective disparities of the detected features between the first image and the second image (compute disparity range S36) [FIG. 3].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to detect features of a stereo pair of images for disparity calculation, as disclosed by Zhang, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being reducing viewing discomfort [0002].
Regarding claim 4, Jang, Park, and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Park further discloses the header of the bit stream is a Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) header (video coding methods…JPEG) [0008].
Regarding claim 5, Jang, Park, and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses the first image is captured by a first image sensor (image obtaining unit 1510…two cameras) [0185; FIG. 15A], wherein the second image is captured by a second image sensor (image obtaining unit 1510…two cameras) [0185; FIG. 15A].
Park further discloses determining a convergence plane where viewing axes of the first and second image sensors intersect (a convergence distance (convergence_distance) 744 indicating a distance from the center of the two cameras to a convergence point of the two cameras’ view points) [0065]; and
encoding the convergence plane into the bit stream (stereoscopic packet generator 600 generates stereoscopic image packets; camera parameter field (camera_params_field) 724 includes…a convergence distance (convergence_distance) 744) [0052; 0065].
Regarding claim 6, Jang, Park, and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
Jang further discloses the first image is captured by a first image sensor (image obtaining unit 1510…two cameras) [0185; FIG. 15A], wherein the second image is captured by a second image sensor (image obtaining unit 1510…two cameras) [0185; FIG. 15A],
wherein the method further comprises: determining an interocular distance as a horizontal spacing between the first and second images (a variable ‘translation’ indicating translation information between the first view and second view cameras in a x-y coordinate…may be defined as 3D camera information (830) [0138]; and
encoding the interocular distance into the bit stream (low fatigue information of FIG. 9…described as the 3D image reproduction information; insert 3D image reproduction information into program guide information section 2240, generate transport stream 2260) [0074; FIG. 22].
Claims 8, and 11-13 are drawn to a system adapted to implement the method in claims 1, and 4-6, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a first camera, a second camera and processing circuitry, which Jang also teaches (stereo/Multiview camera 1510, encoding unit 1514; computer) [FIG. 15A; 0095].
Claims 15 and 18-20 are drawn to a computer readable medium drawn to the instructions corresponding to the method in claims 1 and 4-6, and are rejected for the same reasons of unpatentability as used above. However, the claims also recite processing circuitry, which Jang also teaches (computer) [0095].
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang, Park, and Zheng further in view of Yang et al. US 2011/0310982 A1, hereafter Yang.
Regarding claim 2, Jang, Park, and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose the header is a supplemental enhancement information header.
Yang, in an analogous environment, discloses the header is a supplemental enhancement information header (NAL unit….NAL header…types of the NAL unit…SEI (Supplemental Enhancement Information) [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an SEI header to transmit video related information, as disclosed by Yang, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being efficiency [0008].
Regarding claim 3, Jang, Park, and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose the header of the bit stream is a parameter set of a multi-view video coding header.
Yang, in an analogous environment, discloses the header of the bit stream is a parameter set of a multi-view video coding header (NAL unit….NAL header…types of the NAL unit…SPS (Sequence Parameter Set), PPS (Picture Parameter Set)) [0032].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a parameter set header to transmit video related information, as disclosed by Yang, with the invention disclosed by the combination, the motivation being efficiency [0008].
Claims 9 and 10 are drawn to a system adapted to implement the method in claims 2 and 3, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a first camera, a second camera and processing circuitry, which Jang also teaches (stereo/Multiview camera 1510, encoding unit 1514; computer) [FIG. 15A; 0095].
Claims 16 and 17 are drawn to a computer readable medium drawn to the instructions corresponding to the method in claims 2 and 3, and are rejected for the same reasons of unpatentability as used above. However, the claims also recite processing circuitry, which Jang also teaches (computer) [0095].
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jang, Park, Zheng further in view of Segall US 2012/0050474 A1, hereafter Segall.
Regarding claim 7, Jang, Park, and Zhang address all of the features with respect to claim 1 as outlined above.
However, the combination fails to disclose encoding focus settings and exposure settings into the bit stream.
Segall, in an analogous environment, discloses encoding focus settings and exposure settings into the bit stream (camera sensor metadata 118, comprising exposure…focus…are passed 124 to the video codec 126 for use in video coding) [0199].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use encode camera focus and exposure setting, as disclosed by Segall, with the invention disclosed by the combination, obtaining predictable results of including focus and exposure settings into the 3D camera information for encoding.
Claims 14 are drawn to a system adapted to implement the method in claims 7, and are therefore rejected in the same manner as above. However, the claims also recite a first camera, a second camera and processing circuitry, which Jang also teaches (stereo/Multiview camera 1510, encoding unit 1514; computer) [FIG. 15A; 0095].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Park et al. US 2013/0002814 A1 discloses object detection in stereo images. Badino et al. US 2011/0311108 A1 discloses detecting objects in stereo images and determining a disparity image.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEFAN GADOMSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-5701. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 12-8PM 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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571-272-2988. 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.
STEFAN GADOMSKI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2485
/STEFAN GADOMSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2485
Prosecution Insights