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 IDS dated 11/26/2024 and 3/25/2026 has been considered and placed in the application file.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 (and correspondingly claim 11) recites “providing a primary tie feature database from primary tie features detected in the primary image; providing a secondary tie feature image database from secondary tie features detected in the secondary image”. It is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating a database is “from primary tie features detected in the primary image”, as databases naturally contain images with features. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this limitation as a database containing the primary and secondary images with features.
Claim 4 (and correspondingly claim 14) recites “forward matching tie features in the primary image with tie features in the secondary image to obtain a first number of tie feature matches; and backward matching tie features in the secondary image with tie features in the primary image to obtain a second number of tie feature matches”. It is unclear what the Applicant is claiming when stating a “forward” and “backward” matching with the primary and secondary tie features, as feature matching is simply the process of matching two features across two images with no relation to directional input. The Applicant in specification paragraph [0057] states “As such, the use of “backward matching” is used when the algorithm 110 is comparing a tie feature of the secondary image 1302 with another tie feature of the primary image 130. It should be noted that the operation of backward matching is similar to the operation of forward matching but is performed in a reverse order of matching tie features between primary and secondary images 130, 132”. The Applicant stated the difference between forward and backward matching is the order of the matching tie features. However, to the examiner’s understanding, there is no directional sequence involved with feature matching and it is unclear how the matching is different, as feature matching is simply just comparing one object/feature to another object/feature. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret this limitation as matching a plurality of tie features between the secondary and primary image to obtain tie feature matches.
Claim 6 (and correspondingly claim 16) recites “invalidating the secondary image when the first number of tie features and the second number of tie features are different from one another”. It is unclear if the Applicant is differentiating by whether or not the features are the same, or if the number of features is the same. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the former and assume this limitation as invalidating tie feature matches if they are not the same object/feature.
Claim 9 (and correspondingly claim 19) recites “invalidating the secondary image when a first number of tie features and a second number of tie features are different from one another”. Similar to claim 6, it is unclear if the Applicant is differentiating by whether or not the features are the same, or if the number of features is the same. For examination purposes, the examiner will interpret the former and assume this limitation as invalidating tie feature matches if they are not the same object/feature.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected for their dependencies on claims 1 and 11 respectively.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
“providing a primary image that has been georegistered; providing a secondary image; providing a primary tie feature database from primary tie features detected in the primary image; providing a secondary tie feature image database from secondary tie features detected in the secondary image” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering.
“tie feature matching at least one secondary tie feature from the secondary tie feature database with at least one primary tie feature from the primary tie feature database within a first search area” which can be reasonably interpreted as a human observer mentally determining the same feature in two images of a search area.
“And georegistering the secondary image” which is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a geographic form of image registration (georeferencing).
Claim 2 recites “wherein the step of tie feature matching further comprises: tie feature matching within a second search area different from the first search area”. A person can mentally determine a feature match in another search area that is different from a first search area.
Claim 3 recites “narrowing the first search area to a second search area smaller than the first search area; and, tie feature matching at least another secondary tie feature from the secondary tie feature database with at least one primary tie feature from the primary tie feature database within the second search area”. A person can mentally narrow down a search area into smaller segments and determine a feature match within that second search area.
Claim 4 recites “forward matching tie features in the primary image with tie features in the secondary image to obtain a first number of tie feature matches; and backward matching tie features in the secondary image with tie features in the primary image to obtain a second number of tie feature matches”. A person can mentally feature match by looking at one primary image, a secondary image, and compare the two respective features.
Claim 5 recites “validating the secondary image when the first number of tie features and the second number of tie features equal one another”. A person can mentally validate an image if the number of tie features from one image is the same as another image.
Claim 6 recites “invalidating the secondary image when the first number of tie features and the second number of tie features are different from one another”. A person can mentally invalidate an image if the features from one image is not the same as another image.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the step of tie feature matching further comprises: drawing a first pair of lines from the centerpoints of two tie features in the primary image to centerpoints of two tie features in the secondary image”. A person with the aid of a pen and paper can mark features with a circle on two locations of an image, and draw lines from one feature to another.
Claim 8 recites “validating the secondary image when a first number of tie features and a second number of tie features equal one another”. A person can mentally validate an image if the number of tie features from one image is the same as another image.
Claim 9 recites “invalidating the secondary image when a first number of tie features and a second number of tie features are different from one another”. A person can mentally invalidate an image if the features from one image is not the same as another image.
Claim 10 recites “drawing a second pair of lines, wherein when the first pair of lines or the second pair of lines are free from intersecting one another between the primary and secondary images, the method further comprises: georegistering the secondary image”. A person with the aid of pen and paper can draw parallel lines between two images. Georegistering the secondary image as a result is a well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a geographic form of image registration.
Claim 18 recites “validate tie features in the secondary image when the lines are free from intersecting one another between the primary and secondary images”. A person can mentally validate features in an image if the lines connecting them are parallel.
Claim 19 recites “invalidate tie features in the secondary image when the lines intersect one another between the primary and secondary images”. A person can mentally invalidate features in an image if the lines intersect with each other.
Claims 11-17, 20 corresponds to claims 1-7, 10 respectively, additionally reciting a computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums encoded with instructions thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause a process to be carried out. These parts are adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
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 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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varshney (US 20240212174 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Varshney discloses a method of georegistering an image (Varshney, paragraph [0031], “In order to meaningfully compare a series of images and measure changes in subject matter over time—whether they be medical, satellite, or some other type of image—the images may need to be registered based on an image registration technique”), comprising:
providing a primary image that has been georegistered; providing a secondary image (Varshney, paragraph [0033], "] For example, a first satellite 104 may image the geographic region 102 at some point in time, which results in a reference image 106 of the geographic region 102 . Similarly, a second satellite 114 may image the geographic region 102 at another point in time, which results in an offset image 116 of the geographic region 102"),
providing a primary tie feature database from primary tie features detected in the primary image; providing a secondary tie feature image database from secondary tie features detected in the secondary image (Varshney, paragraph [0037], "For example, FIG. 1C illustrates example tie points that may be determined for the reference image 106 and the offset image 116")*,
*all of these images are stored in a database as stated in paragraph [0082], “While machine-readable medium 622 is shown in an example embodiment to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, or associated caches and servers) able to store instructions (e.g., instructions 624)”,
PNG
media_image1.png
248
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
tie feature matching at least one secondary tie feature from the secondary tie feature database with at least one primary tie feature from the primary tie feature database within a first search area (Varshney, paragraph [0038], "Once tie points are determined, the image registration technique may determine offsets between the tie points in the reference image 106 and the offset image 116. The offsets may measure differences between the tie points, for example, in terms of rotation, scale, or shift."),
And georegistering the secondary image (Varshney, paragraph [0039], "Once alignment is attempted, at step 124 of FIG. 1B, a determination is made whether the alignment of the tie points in the reference image 106 and the offset image 116 was successful. For example, the determination may be based on whether the alignment between all of the tie points was achieved. If the alignment is determined to be successful, at step 126, the reference image 106 and the offset image 116 are determined to be registered").
Regarding claim 2, Varshney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of tie feature matching further comprises: tie feature matching within a second search area different from the first search area (Varshney, paragraph [0037], "Similarly, another tie point 132a may be determined for a different geographic feature (e.g., a road) represented in the reference image 106 and a corresponding tie point 132b may be determined for a matching geographic feature in the offset image 116").
Regarding claim 4, Varshney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of tie feature matching further comprises the steps of: forward matching tie features in the primary image with tie features in the secondary image to obtain a first number of tie feature matches; and backward matching tie features in the secondary image with tie features in the primary image to obtain a second number of tie feature matches (Varshney, paragraph [0037], "In the example of FIG. 1C, a tie point 130a may be determined for a geographic feature (e.g., a building) represented in the reference image 106 and a corresponding tie point 130b may be determined for a matching geographic feature in the offset image 116. Similarly, another tie point 132a may be determined for a different geographic feature (e.g., a road) represented in the reference image 106 and a corresponding tie point 132b may be determined for a matching geographic feature in the offset image 116").
Regarding claim 5, Varshney discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: validating the secondary image when the first number of tie features and the second number of tie features equal one another (Varshney, paragraph [0039], " For example, the determination may be based on whether the alignment between all of the tie points was achieved. If the alignment is determined to be successful, at step 126, the reference image 106 and the offset image 116 are determined to be registered").
Regarding claim 6, Varshney discloses the method of claim 4, further comprising: invalidating the secondary image when the first number of tie features and the second number of tie features are different from one another (Varshney, paragraph [0040], "For instance, the alignment may fail due to the introduction of new vegetation that obstructs existing geographic features, such as buildings, which were identified as tie points in the reference image 106.").
Regarding claim 7, Varshney discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the step of tie feature matching further comprises: drawing a first pair of lines from the centerpoints of two tie features in the primary image to centerpoints of two tie features in the secondary image (Varshney, paragraph [0037], "In the example of FIG. 1C, a tie point 130a may be determined for a geographic feature (e.g., a building) represented in the reference image 106 and a corresponding tie point 130b may be determined for a matching geographic feature in the offset image 116. Similarly, another tie point 132a may be determined for a different geographic feature (e.g., a road) represented in the reference image 106 and a corresponding tie point 132b may be determined for a matching geographic feature in the offset image 116", as shown in the image below, there are center points and lines connecting the tie points).
PNG
media_image1.png
248
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Varshney discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: validating the secondary image when a first number of tie features and a second number of tie features equal one another (Varshney, paragraph [0039], " For example, the determination may be based on whether the alignment between all of the tie points was achieved. If the alignment is determined to be successful, at step 126, the reference image 106 and the offset image 116 are determined to be registered").
Regarding claim 9, Varshney discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: invalidating the secondary image when a first number of tie features and a second number of tie features are different from one another (Varshney, paragraph [0040], "For instance, the alignment may fail due to the introduction of new vegetation that obstructs existing geographic features, such as buildings, which were identified as tie points in the reference image 106.").
Regarding claim 10, Varshney discloses the method of claim 7, further comprising: drawing a second pair of lines, wherein when the first pair of lines or the second pair of lines are free from intersecting one another between the primary and secondary images, the method further comprises: georegistering the secondary image (Varshney, paragraph [0039], Fig. 1c below, "For example, the determination may be based on whether the alignment between all of the tie points was achieved. If the alignment is determined to be successful, at step 126, the reference image 106 and the offset image 116 are determined to be registered").
PNG
media_image1.png
248
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 11-12, 14-17, 20 corresponds to claims 1-2, 4-7, 10 respectively, additionally reciting a computer program product including one or more non-transitory machine-readable mediums encoded with instructions (Varshney, paragraph [0013], “According to some embodiments, the systems, methods, and non-transitory computer readable media are further directed to normalizing the first image and the second image based on one or more image normalization techniques”) thereon that when executed by one or more processors cause a process to be carried out (Varshney, paragraph [0056], “The image processing engine 302 may be implemented in a computer system that includes at least one processor, memory, and communication interface”). Thus, they are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as claims 1-2, 4-7, 10 respectively.
Regarding claim 18, Varshney discloses the computer program product of claim 17, wherein the instructions further comprise: validate tie features in the secondary image when the lines are free from intersecting one another between the primary and secondary images (Varshney, paragraph [0039], Fig. 1c above, "For example, the determination may be based on whether the alignment between all of the tie points was achieved. If the alignment is determined to be successful, at step 126, the reference image 106 and the offset image 116 are determined to be registered", the lines are not intersecting).
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 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) 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshney (US 20240212174 A1) in view of Peng (US 20150310595 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Varshney discloses the method of claim 1.
Varshney does not teach “further comprising: narrowing the first search area to a second search area smaller than the first search area”.
However, Peng teaches further comprising: narrowing the first search area to a second search area smaller than the first search area (Peng, paragraph [0004], "For local contrast enhancement, an image is first divided into several blocks, and then a procedure called histogram equalization is performed to each of the blocks so that the brightness values of pixels in a block are transformed based on a transformation function (contrast enhancement function) of the block").
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to divide Varshney’s image into blocks to narrow their search area, as taught by Peng.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce computational resources and save storage.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Varshney in view of Peng discloses and, tie feature matching at least another secondary tie feature from the secondary tie feature database with at least one primary tie feature from the primary tie feature database within the second search area (Varshney, paragraph [0038], "Once tie points are determined, the image registration technique may determine offsets between the tie points in the reference image 106 and the offset image 116. The offsets may measure differences between the tie points, for example, in terms of rotation, scale, or shift.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Varshney in view of Peng to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varshney (US 20240212174 A1) in view of Young (US 20180325481 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Varshney discloses the computer program product of claim 17.
Varshney does not teach “wherein the instructions further comprise: invalidate tie features in the secondary image when the lines intersect one another between the primary and secondary images”.
However, Young teaches wherein the instructions further comprise: invalidate tie features in the secondary image when the lines intersect one another between the primary and secondary images (Young, paragraph [0078], "Therefore, it is indicated that a “bad quality” image is present, because the sixth rib does intersect with the diaphragm line, accordingly enabling the provision of an X-ray image inhalation quality measure to a user", using the concept of two lines intersecting each other in an image, a conclusion is deduced based on such intersection).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to invalidate a tie feature if Varshney’s lines intersect, as taught by Young.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to notify users to capture images that are similar to the reference images, leading to better registration accuracy.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Varshney in view of Young to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAYNE ZHANG whose telephone number is (571) 272-0245. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00-6:00 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, Ms. Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on (571) 272-3638. 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.
/WAYNE ZHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights