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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
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 (1-2, 5-12, 15-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims (1-2, 5-12, 15-20) are directed to the abstract idea of Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
“determine epipolar lines of an input image based on an epipole point of the input image; sample pixels of the input image based on the epipolar lines to obtain pixels for rows of a rectified image; and output the rectified image”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite additional limitations such “determine epipolar lines of an input image based on an epipole point of the input image; sample pixels of the input image based on the epipolar lines to obtain pixels for rows of a rectified image; and output the rectified image”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “practical application” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide practical application for an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05 (f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "practical application" for the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims recite additional limitations which are “apparatus for processing image data, memory, processor”. However, these limitations are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” being recited in the claims along with the abstract idea since these limitations are merely invoked as a tool to perform instruction of Abstract idea in a particular technological environment and/or are generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and merely applying and abstract idea in a particular technological environment and merely limiting use of an abstract idea to a particular field or a technological environment do not provide significantly more to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f) & (h)). The claims do not amount to "significantly more" than the abstract idea because they neither (1) recite any improvements to another technology or technical field; (2) recite any improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; (3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; (4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; (5) add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field; (6) add unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; nor (7) provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claims (1-2, 5-12, 15-20) that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and looking at the limitations as a combination and as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, claims (1-2, 5-12, 15-20) are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims (1-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims (1, 11) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: rectifying the input image to generate a rectified image. Claims (2-10, 12-20) depend on claims (1, 11).
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.
Claim(s) (1-20) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Danziger et al (hereinafter Danziger)(US Publication 2023/0141515 A1) in view of Baker. (US Patent 10,008,027 B1)
Re claim 1, Danziger discloses an apparatus for processing image data, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory (See fig. 1: 4 where it teaches a memory); and at least one processor (See fig. 1: 2 where it teaches a controller/processor) coupled to the at least one memory and configured to: determine epipolar lines of an input image based on an epipole point of the input image (See fig. 2, 3C, 6A, B; ¶ 137-146 where it teaches determining epipolar lines based on epipole point of the image.); sample pixels of the input image based on the epipolar lines to obtain pixels for rows of a rectified image (See fig. 3C, 6A, B; ¶ 137-146 where it teaches lines 110B in image 20A’ corresponds to lines 110B/180B in rectified image 20A’/180-RECA.); and output the rectified image. (See fig. 3C: 180 where it teaches outputting the rectified image.)
But the reference of Danziger fails to explicitly teach cause pixels of rows in the input image to align in columns in the rectified image.
However, the reference of Baker does. (See fig. 2, 5, 12) In the same field of endeavors, the reference of Baker discloses and fairly suggests cause pixels of rows in the input image to align in columns in the rectified image. (See fig. 5; col. 16, lines 27-49 where it teaches an epipolar rectifying collineation transformation of two images. An image 501 from a first camera has an epipolar line 504 with two points 506a and 506b on the epipolar line 504. Similarly, an image 502 from a second camera has an epipolar line 505 with two points 507a and 507b on the epipolar line 505. A collineation transformation transforms image 501 to section 509 of image 503 in such a way that epipolar line 504 in image 501 maps into epipolar line 511 in image 503, and points 506a and 506b in image 501 map into points 508a and 508c respectively in image 503, where points 508a and 508c lie on epipolar line 511 in image 503. Similarly, the collineation transformation transforms image 502 to section 510 of image 503 in such a way that epipolar line 505 in image 502 maps into the same epipolar line 511 in image 503, and points 507a and 507b in image 502 map into points 508b and 508d respectively in image 503, where points 508b and 508d lie on epipolar line 511 in image 503. The collineation transform 219 is required for general epipolar rectification; col. 22, lines 6-12 where it teaches the calibration operates as described with respect to FIG. 5 to map corresponding feature observations to two straight lines simultaneously—one in horizontal projections such as 511 and one in vertical projections (not illustrated in FIG. 5), wherein suggesting that rectification may also be done vertically.)
Therefore, taking the combined teachings of Danziger & Baker as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to incorporate this feature into the system of Danziger, in the manner as claimed and as taught by Baker, for the benefit of projecting vertically. (See col. 22, lines 6-12)
Re claim 2, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to: determine disparities between pixels of the rectified image and pixels of an additional rectified image, wherein the disparities are determined along rows of the rectified image and corresponding rows of the additional rectified image; and determine depths to points in a scene depicted by the input image based on the disparities. (In Danziger, see fig. 3C; ¶ 128, 146-149)
Re claim 3, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to adjust an operating parameter of a vehicle based on the depths. (In Danziger, see fig. 3C; ¶ 37, 81)
Re claim 4, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the operating parameter is associated with at least one of a path for the vehicle to travel, a steering parameter for operating steering of the vehicle, an automatic-braking parameter for operating one or more brakes of the vehicle, a lane-change parameter for causing the vehicle to navigate from a first lane to a second lane, or displaying information using a user interface of the vehicle. (In Danziger, see fig. 3C; ¶ 37, 81)
Re claim 5, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to, while sampling pixels along an epipolar line, map the pixels along the epipolar line to a row of the rectified image using a trigonometric function based on an angle of the epipolar line. (In Danziger, see fig. 2, 3C, 6A, B; ¶ 137-146)
Re claim 6, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to, while sampling the pixels of the input image, cause rows of the rectified image to relate to evenly-spaced points in a scene depicted by the input image. (In Danziger, see fig. 3C, 6A, B; ¶ 137-146)
Re claim 7, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the epipolar lines are determined to be evenly distributed across the input image. (In Danziger, see fig. 3C, 6A, B)
Re claim 8, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine angles between the epipolar lines based on a trigonometric function. (In Danziger, see fig. 2, 3C, 6A, B; ¶ 68-75, 149)
Re claim 9, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to, while sampling the pixels of the input image, sample pixels along an epipolar line based on a distance between sampled pixels of the input image and the epipole point. (In Danziger, see fig. 2, 6A, B; ¶ 120)
Re claim 10, the combination of Danziger & Baker discloses wherein the at least one processor is configured to, while sampling the pixels of the input image, sample pixels along an epipolar line based on a Bezier function of a distance between sampled pixels of the input image and the epipole point. (In Danziger, see fig. 2, 6A, B; ¶ 120)
Claims (11-20) are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims (1-10). Hence the steps performed in method claims (11-20) would have necessitated the elements in apparatus claims (1-10). Therefore, claims (11-20) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claims (1-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Rahnama (US 2022/0230341 A1) discloses a stereo depth estimation.
Miller et al (US 2012/0007954 A1) disclose a method and apparatus for disparity-based improvement of stereo camera calibration.
Gonzalez-Aguirre (US 2024/0214694 A1) disclose an epipolar scan line neural processor arrays for four-dimensional event detection and identification.
Slezak et al (US 2025/0160249 A1) disclose a stereo camera system.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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 at 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 June 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights