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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in this Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an input interface” in claim 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure(s) described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the processor 3601 shown in Fig. 17 of the pre-granted publication, which is a specialized processor when it executes the algorithm illustrated in Fig. 5.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9-10, 12-14 and 20 of the present application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 7, 3, 5, 9, 14 and 20, respectively, of the US Patent 11,615,582.
The following table shows in detail the correspondence between claim 1 of the present application and claim 1 of the above US Patent. The mappings for other claims are also shown, but in corresponding claim numbers only, for brevity purposes.
Present Application
US Patent 11,615,582
1. A method comprising:
receiving a plurality of images captured by an image capture device mounted on an image capture device gimbal, the image capture device gimbal capable of rotating the image capture device around a nodal point in three dimensions, the plurality of images being captured in a plurality of rotational positions by an image capture device sensor not at the nodal point;
generating a three-dimensional model using the plurality of images and sensor data associated with the plurality of images;
generating a first synthetic image from a first virtual viewpoint associated with the three-dimensional model, the first synthetic image using positions of the plurality of images captured by the image capture device to correct for parallax errors caused by the plurality of images being captured by the image capture device sensor at different relative positions from the nodal point, the different relative positions from the nodal point corresponding to different image capture device gimbal rotational positions; and
storing the first synthetic image on a storage device.
1. A method comprising:
identifying a plurality of images captured at an image capture device mounted on an image capture device gimbal, the image capture device gimbal capable of rotating the image capture device around a nodal point in three dimensions, each of the plurality of images being captured from a respective rotational position, the plurality of images being captured by a designated camera that is not located at the nodal point in one or more of the respective rotational positions;
determining a plurality of respective positions for the plurality of images, a designated one of the respective positions identifying a position relative to the nodal point for a designated one of the plurality of images;
determining a designated three-dimensional model based on the plurality of images and the plurality of respective positions, the designated three-dimensional model including a plurality of points each having a respective position in a virtual three-dimensional space;
generating one or more synthetic images based at least in part on the designated three-dimensional model, each of the synthetic images being generated from a respective virtual viewpoint within the virtual three-dimensional space, the synthetic images generated using the positions of the plurality of images captured by the designated camera to correct for parallax errors caused by the images being captured at different relative positions from the nodal point in various gimbal rotational positions; and
storing the one or more synthetic images on a storage device.
6
6
7
8
9
7
10
3
12
5
13
9
14
14
20
20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable if the above double patenting rejection is overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art fails to teach or suggest a method for generating a synthetic image by: (1) receiving a plurality of images captured by an image capture device mounted on an image capture device gimbal, the image capture device gimbal capable of rotating the image capture device around a nodal point in three dimensions, the plurality of images being captured in a plurality of rotational positions by an image capture device sensor not at the nodal point; (2) generating a three-dimensional model using the plurality of images and sensor data associated with the plurality of images; (3) generating a synthetic image from a virtual viewpoint associated with the three-dimensional model, the synthetic image using positions of the plurality of images captured by the image capture device to correct for parallax errors caused by the plurality of images being captured by the image capture device sensor at different relative positions from the nodal point, the different relative positions from the nodal point corresponding to different image capture device gimbal rotational positions; and (4) storing the synthetic image on a storage device.
The followings are the most relevant prior art references:
1. US 2018/0144547 (“Pub. ‘547” hereinafter). Pub. ‘547 discloses: (1) receiving a plurality of images captured at an image capture device, each of the plurality of images being captured from a respective rotational position, the plurality of images being captured by an image capture device in one or more of the respective rotational positions (See pars. 25 and 29), (2) determining a three-dimensional model based on the plurality of images and sensor data associated with the plurality of images (See par. 28), (3) generating a synthetic image based on the three-dimensional model, the synthetic image being generated from a virtual viewpoint associated with the three-dimensional model (See pars. 26 and 32), and (4) storing the synthetic image on a storage device (See par. 97). Pub. ‘547, however, does not disclose: (a) using a gimbal to mount the image capture device, wherein the gimbal is capable of rotating the image capture device around a nodal point in three dimensions, and the camera of the image capture device is not located at the nodal point, and (b) the synthetic image using positions of the plurality of images captured by the image capture device mounted on the gimbal to correct for parallax errors caused by the plurality of images being captured by the sensor of the image capture device at different relative positions from the nodal point of the gimbal, the different relative positions from the nodal point corresponding to different gimbal rotational position.
2. “DJI OSMO Mobile 2 Hands-on Review” (YouTube video cited in Applicant’s IDS, uploaded on 4/19/2018, available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaJ_Tz_gDso; “DJI” hereinafter). DJI teaches a gimbal that can be used to mount a mobile phone having a camera, wherein the gimbal can rotate the mobile phone around a nodal point (located on top of its handle) in three dimensions, and the camera's sensor is not located at the nodal point (See the above YouTube video from time 20 sec. to 25 sec.).
3. US 2002/0122113 (“Pub. ‘113” hereinafter). Pub. ‘113 teaches combining two images captured by two cameras located at different positions wherein parallax compensation is employed during the combination process (See pars. 90-104). However, Pub. ‘113 is silent about generating a synthetic image from a virtual viewpoint associated with a three-dimensional model using positions of the two images to correct for parallax errors caused by the two images being captured at the different positions. To the best of the examiner’s knowledge, there are no prior art references that disclose this feature.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
See the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm 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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/PHONG X NGUYEN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights