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 information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted is considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 8, 17 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1 of claims 8 and 17, “the method of the claim”, should be corrected to “the method of
In line 1 of claim 20, “The computer programmable product of claim 19”, should be corrected to “The non-transitory computer-readable medium claim 19”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aviv (US Publication Number 2015/0363669 A1) in view of Hwang et al. (US Publication Number 2012/0120256 A1, hereinafter “Hwang”).
(1) regarding claim 1:
A shown in fig. 1, Aviv disclosed a method (para. [0023], note that an illustrative embodiment of a system 100 operable to process image data to detect a line associated with an image is shown), comprising:
obtaining image data associated with one or more sensors associated with a user device (para. [0023], note that the electronic device may be a mobile device that includes an image sensor, such as a camera, configured to capture images);
determining count data associated with one or more cores of a processor of the user device (para. [0024], note that the processing core(s) 120 may include one or more processing cores, such as a first processing core 130 and a second processing core 140);
segmenting the image data into one or more segments based on the count data (para. [0026], note that the first processing core 130 may determine line segment data 128 associated with the group of pixels of the image. For example, the line segment data 128 may be associated with one or more candidate line segments corresponding to the group of pixels of the image. The line segment data 128 may include one or more entries that each correspond to a different candidate line segment);
processing each of the one or more segments of the image data with a corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of the user device (para. [0027], note that the first processing core 130 may include Hough transform logic 122 to generate the line segment data 128. The Hough transform logic 122 may process the image data 110 to generate one or more candidate lines that correspond to the group of pixels); and
combining each of the processed one or more segments of the image data to form combined processed image data (para. [0118], note that the intra tile merger 532 and/or the inter tile merger 534 (e.g., the line segment merger 224) may use weights (e.g., weighted averaging) for combining one or more line segments. To illustrate, the inter tile merger 534 may use weights when combining detected line segments across tiles and/or when combining a concatenated line segment and a detected line segment across tiles, such as when the linear regression is performed).
Aviv disclosed to teach the number of processor count but not specifically teaching count data.
However, Hwang teaches count data (120n, processor N, fig. 1, count processor data related with the core processors).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to teach count data. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve processing efficiency and reduce power consumption while providing higher-quality data-intensive functions (para. [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aviv with Hwang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
(2) regarding claim 2:
Aviv further disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more segments of the image data is associated with a segment identifier (para. [0008], note that the one or more processing cores is further configured to identify a set of line segments of the multiple candidate line segments and to determine a representative line segment based on the set of line segments), and each of the one or more cores of the processor of the user device is associated with a core identifier (para. [0033], note that the second processing core 140 may process the line segment data 128 to generate a set of detected lines 150 (e.g., line segment information) that identifies one or more detected lines corresponding to the group of pixels of the image).
(3) regarding claim 3:
Aviv further disclosed the method of claim 2, further comprising combining each of the processed one or more segments of the image data based on the segment identifier and the core identifier (para. [0040], note that the merge logic 124 (e.g., the second processing core 140) may determine and output the set of detected lines 150 (e.g., detected line segment information) based on one or more detected line segments. For example, the set of detected lines 150 may include an entry for each detected line segment. Each entry of the set of detected lines 150 may include a line identifier, an angle (α) associated with the detected line segment, a distance (d) associated with the detected line segment, a slope of the detected line segment, a point (e.g., a Cartesian coordinate) that the detected line segment passes through, an endpoint (based on a border of the group of pixels 181) of the detected line segment).
(4) regarding claim 4:
Aviv further disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising:
segmenting each of the one or more segments of the image data into one or more sub-segments based on the corresponding core (para. [0072], note that the image at 380 may be divided into the multiple tiles by the pixel group selector 306. The multiple tiles may include four tiles, such as a first tile (1), a second tile (2), a third tile (3), and a fourth tile (4). Each of the multiple tiles may correspond to a different group of pixels).
Aviv disclosed most of the subject matter as described as above except for specifically teaching processing each of the one or more sub-segments of a segment of the one or more segments with a corresponding sub-core of the corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of user device.
However, Hwang teaches processing each of the one or more sub-segments of a segment of the one or more segments with a corresponding sub-core of the corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of user device (para. [0046], note that if the electronic device 102 determines 304 that it would be beneficial to segment the image data for parallel processing, the electronic device 102 may determine 308 a mapping. That is, the controller 110 may determine 308 which processor or processors 120 to map the image data to. In one configuration, the controller 110 determines which (and how many) processors 120 are needed to process the image data at the current resolution and/or frame rate).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to process each of the one or more sub-segments of a segment of the one or more segments with a corresponding sub-core of the corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of user device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve processing efficiency and reduce power consumption while providing higher-quality data-intensive functions (para. [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aviv with Hwang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
(5) regarding claim 5:
Aviv further disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising: segmenting, using a master process, the image data into the one or more segments (para. [0026], note that the line segment data 128 may be associated with one or more candidate line segments corresponding to the group of pixels of the image. The line segment data 128 may include one or more entries that each correspond to a different candidate line segment. Each entry included in the line segment data 128 may include an angle value, a distance value, one or more coordinate values, or a combination thereof, as described further herein).
Aviv disclosed most of the subject matter as described as above except for specifically teaching allocating, using the master process, each of the one or more segments to the corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of the user device.
However, Hwang disclosed allocating, using the master process, each of the one or more segments to the corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of the user device (para. [0047], note that if a first processor 120 alone or individually is currently incapable of processing the image data at the desired resolution and/or frame rate, the controller 110 may add or map the image data to additional processors 120 until enough processing power is available to process the image data. For instance, the number of processors 120 used to process the image data may be dynamically adjusted (e.g., added or removed) based on the incoming or current workload (e.g., amount, resolution and/or frame rate of image data)).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to allocate, using the master process, each of the one or more segments to the corresponding core of the one or more cores of the processor of the user device. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve processing efficiency and reduce power consumption while providing higher-quality data-intensive functions (para. [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aviv with Hwang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
(6) regarding claim 6:
Aviv further disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising generating a navigation instruction based on the combined processed image (para. [0059], note that the second processing core 140 may include a line segment merger 224. The line segment merger 224 may include or correspond to the merge logic 124 of FIG. 1. The line segment merger 224 may be configured to receive the line segment data 128 and to generate the set of detected lines 150 based on the line segment data 128).
(7) regarding claim 7:
Aviv further disclosed the method of claim 1, further comprising storing the combined processed image in a map database (para. [0027], note that the multiple points may be mapped to the parameter space by generating two-dimensional (2D) histogram data (e.g., angle-distance 2D histogram data) that corresponds to a 2D histogram).
(8) regarding claim 8:
Aviv further disclosed the method of para. [0078], note the histogram data generator 222 may be configured to process each group of data serially (e.g., one after the other) or in parallel).
(9) regarding claim 9:
Aviv disclosed most of the subject matter as described as above except for specifically teaching wherein the count data is indicative of a number of available cores of the processor of the user device, for processing the image data.
However, Hwang disclosed wherein the count data is indicative of a number of available cores of the processor of the user device, for processing the image data (para. [0046], note that the controller 110 may determine 308 which processor or processors 120 to map the image data to. In one configuration, the controller 110 determines which (and how many) processors 120 are needed to process the image data at the current resolution and/or frame rate).
At the time of filing for the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art to wherein the count data is indicative of a number of available cores of the processor of the user device, for processing the image data. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been in order to improve processing efficiency and reduce power consumption while providing higher-quality data-intensive functions (para. [0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aviv with Hwang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
The proposed rejection of claims 1-9, renders obvious the steps of the system claims 10-18 (fig. 1, 120, processing core(s), para. [0150], storage medium) and non-transitory computer-readable medium claims 19 and 20 (para. [0077], note that he memory 882 may be random access memory (RAM), read-only memory (ROM), magnetic disk storage media, optical storage media, flash memory devices in RAM, on-board memory included with the processor, programmable read-only memory (PROM), erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM), electrically erasable PROM (EEPROM), registers, and so forth, including combinations thereof.) because these steps occur in the operation of the proposed rejection as discussed above. Thus, the arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1-9 are equally applicable to claims 10-20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Soni et al. (US Publication Number 2021/0164787 A1) disclosed a system, a method, and a computer programmable product for generating map data of a region.
Stenneth et al. (US Publication Number 2022/0121862 A1) disclosed systems and methods for the detection and analysis of road markings and other road objects are described.
Happ et al. (NPL, Multiresolution Segmentation: A Parallel Approach for High Resolution Image Segmentation in Multicore Architectures, 2014) disclosed the process of extracting different objects that compose an image is one of the primary steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Hilina K Demeter whose telephone number is (571) 270-1676.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, King Y. Poon could be reached at (571) 270- 0728. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about PAIR system, see http://pari-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HILINA K DEMETER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
