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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method, electronic device, and non-transitory computer readable medium. mathematical calculation without significantly more. The claims recite a method and apparatus directed to receiving fisheye image data and performing analysis of the image data and provide the result as output. With respect to analysis of independent method Claim 1:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations "respectively calculating a derivative of each pixel in the grayscale image in a horizontal direction to generate a first gradient image, and respectively calculating a derivative of each pixel in the grayscale image in a perpendicular direction to generate a second gradient image" and “respectively calculating an azimuthal angle corresponding to each of first pixels according to each of the first pixels of the first gradient image and a second pixel at a same position as the first pixel in the second gradient image,” as drafted as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mathematical calculations, as data is being processed through a mathematical algorithm. Therefore this concept falls under the grouping of abstract idea of mathematical concepts for mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Additional elements, or a combination of additional elements in the claim, are required to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, in this instance, the additional limitations are “acquiring a fisheye image shot by a fisheye camera,” “performing color space transformation on the fisheye image to generate a grayscale image,” “performing normalization processing on the azimuthal angles to generate an azimuthal image according to the azimuthal angles after normalization processing” and “determining an effective imaging area of the fisheye camera according to the azimuthal image,” which are essentially considered insignificant extra-solution activities of acquiring input and providing output of the result. In addition, the recited circuitry in independent Claim 8 is simply regarded as a generic computing component. Therefore, overall the additional limitations do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception as an indication of integration of the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, Claims 1, 8, 16 all recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claim fails under Step 2A, the claim is further evaluated under Step 2B. The claim herein does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements in the claim are merely insignificant extra-solution activities and a generic computing component, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1, 8, 16 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Fish-eye camera and image processing for commanding a solar tracker” (hereinafter referred to as Garcia-Gil) in view of “An Efficient Sky Detection Algorithm Based on Hybrid Probability Model” (hereinafter referred to as Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia-Gil teaches a fisheye image processing method, comprising: acquiring a fisheye image shot by a fisheye camera [see abstract of Garcia-Gil which cites that an image is captured by a fisheye camera]
PNG
media_image1.png
217
496
media_image1.png
Greyscale
performing color space transformation on the fisheye image to generate a grayscale image [See section 3.1 where the image is converted from a RGB image to a grayscale image];
PNG
media_image2.png
617
492
media_image2.png
Greyscale
respectively calculating an azimuthal angle corresponding to each of first pixels according to each of the first pixels of the first gradient image and a second pixel at a same position as the first pixel in the second gradient image [See Fig 6 and Fig 7 where two different images have an azimuthal angle beta. The azimuthal angle is calculated from the same point (Xc, Yc)]
PNG
media_image3.png
845
531
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and performing normalization processing on the azimuthal angles to generate an azimuthal image according to the azimuthal angles after normalization processing [see equation 14 where the azimuthal angle undergoes normalization processing by adding an offset (delta). See also fig. 13 where an image is created by mapping the azimuth angles];
PNG
media_image4.png
526
817
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
334
506
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Creating an Azimuth image and determining an effective imaging area of the fisheye camera according to the azimuthal image [See section 3.2 paragraph 5 where the image is adjusted so that distortion is compensated. By compensating for the distortion caused by the fisheye lens, the effective imaging area can be determined].
PNG
media_image6.png
213
470
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Garcia-Gill does not explicitly teach calculating the derivative of the greyscale image to calculate gradient images.
Wang does teach respectively calculating a derivative of each pixel in a grayscale image in a horizontal direction to generate a first gradient image, and respectively calculating a derivative of each pixel in the grayscale image in a perpendicular direction to generate a second gradient image [See section II. A. paragraph 3 on page 919 of Wang where a grayscale image has Sobel operators applied to calculate gradient image in the X and Y directions. Sobel operators use first order derivative to obtain the gradients];
PNG
media_image7.png
144
359
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the fisheye lens and azimuth calculations Garcia-Gill with the calculation of gradients of Wang. The motivation to combine would be so that the changes in intensity of the image could be identified to properly segment out portions such as the sun area as segmented by Garcia-Gill, allowing us to more accurately calculate Xc and Yc.
Claim 8 and 15 are similarly analyzed to claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2-7, 9-14, 16-20 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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Chan Park can be reached at (571) 272-7409. 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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights