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 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 7 and 15 recites the limitation "the plurality of cameras" in lines 4, 6-7, 12-13 in claim 7 and line 5 of claim 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected as being dependent upon rejected claims 7 and 15.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9-13 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 2016/0189379 A1 hereinafter “Chen”).
As to claim 1, Chen teaches a method for producing a panoramic image (An image calibrating method for stitching images; Abstract), comprising: obtaining a plurality of images to be stitched by multiple imaging shots (Images are captured by a panorama camera; [0046]); determining a target image (set as target images; Abstract) to be stitched from the plurality of images to be stitched (select targe image; [0046]); determining a stitch sequence of the plurality of images to be stitched (adapted to stitch the plurality of images; [0007]), wherein the target image to be stitched is placed at a preset stitch position and an adjacence relationship of the plurality of images to be stitched in the stitch sequence corresponds to an adjacence relationship of the multiple imaging shots (Fig. 8 shows target image I_t2 being adjacent to multiple images); and obtaining the panoramic image by stitching the plurality of images to be stitched according to the stitch sequence (Fig. 8 shows stitching of images).
As to claim 2, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the preset stitch position is a header stitch position or an end stitch position of the stitch sequence (target image I_t2 is at the right most position of the stitch and therefore it’s interpreted to be the end stitch position; Fig. 8).
As to claim 3, Chen teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprising: determining a target imaging shot from the multiple imaging shots according to an imaging situation of the multiple imaging shots; and determining an image to be stitched obtained by the target imaging shot as the target image to be stitched (comparing the contrast values to set the image with maximal contrast value as a reference image, wherein the other images of the plurality of images are defined as target images; [0006] Note: images with lower contrast is interpreted to be an imaging situation).
As to claim 4, Chen teaches the method of claim 3, wherein an imaging shot with an imaging situation that satisfies a preset condition in the multiple imaging shots is determined as the target imaging shot (comparing the contrast values to set the image with maximal contrast value as a reference image, wherein the other images of the plurality of images are defined as target images; [0006] Note: images with lower contrast is interpreted to be preset condition).
As to claim 5, Chen teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the imaging situation includes at least one of imaging priority or imaging quality (comparing the contrast values to set the image with maximal contrast value as a reference image, wherein the other images of the plurality of images are defined as target images; [0006] Note: images with lower contrast is interpreted to be an imaging quality or priority).
As to claims 9-13, they are the system claim of claims 1-5. Chen teaches a system (Figs 1 and 2).
As to claim 17-19, they are the non-transitory computer readable medium claim of claims 1-3. Chen teaches a computer reads the readable memory to execute the related image calibrating method ([0021]).
As to claim 20, Chen teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 19 (a computer reads the readable memory to execute the related image calibrating method; [0021]), wherein the at least one processor is further directed to determine an imaging with a preset worst imaging situation in the multiple imaging as the target imaging (comparing the contrast values to set the image with maximal contrast value as a reference image, wherein the other images of the plurality of images are defined as target images; [0006] Note: images with lower contrast is interpreted to be worst imaging situation, as in lower quality).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 14-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takenaka (US 2016/0048973 A1)
Chan et al. (US 2019/0281215 A1 hereinafter “Chan”)
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLAIRE X WANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Patricia Mallari can be reached at (571) 272-4729. 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.
CLAIRE X. WANG
Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights