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 § 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 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101. The claimed invention is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. The claim does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a computer-readable storage medium encompasses a signal and signals are non-statutory. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites at lines 9-10 “the candidate region corresponding to each of the first image collection apparatuses” renders the claim indefinite. As recited in lines 9-10 “the candidate region” is based on the scene image of the target scene (recited at lines 5-7), and the scene image is collected by only one or single first image collection apparatus (due to “at least one recited in lines 1-4 which is interpreted as only one image collection apparatus for the purpose of examination). Therefore, “the candidate region corresponding to each of the first image collection apparatuses”, i.e the candidate region corresponding to the plurality (each) image collection apparatuses raises ambiguity in the claim and renders the claim indefinite. Amendments/clarification are required. Claims 2-15, 17, 20 and 25-27depending directly or indirectly on claim 1 are also rejected.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second image collection apparatus" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12 depends from claim 11, therefore it is rejected.
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 1-8, 10-15, 17, 20 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shang et al (US20240169585) hereafter Shang.
1. Regarding claim 1 as best understood by the examiner, Shang discloses a region calibration method (figs 1-5, and para 0045-0050 shows and discloses a calibration method and a system), comprising:
displaying a scene image collected by each of at least one first image collection apparatus located in a target scene, wherein the first image collection apparatus is used for performing image collection on part or all of regions in the target scene (fig 4-5 shows displaying a scene image collected by at least one first image collection apparatus 404-1-404-6, wherein the first image collection apparatus is used for performing image collection on part or all of regions in the target scene (402), examiner notes that due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus, only one image collection apparatus is required by the current claim);
displaying a candidate region selected by region drawing operation in a simulated image for simulating the target scene in response to the region drawing operation performed on the scene image (figs 4-5, paras 0045-0050 shows and discloses displaying a candidate region selected by region drawing operation (demarcated region 402 shown in figs 4-5 meets the limitations of candidate region selected by the region drawing operation) in a simulated image (502-1, 502-2) for simulating the target scene in response to the region drawing operation performed on the scene image);
(examiner notes that due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim, the striked-through limitations are not required to be met because they rely on the plurality of the first collection apparatuses).
2. Regarding claim 2, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 2 are not required to be met.
3. Regarding claim 3, see the explanation of claims 1-2. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 3 are not required to be met.
4. Regarding claim 4, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 4 are not required to be met.
5. Regarding claim 5, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 5 are not required to be met.
6. Regarding claim 6, see the explanation of claims 1 and 5. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 6 are not required to be met.
7. Regarding claim 7, see the explanation of claims 1 and 6. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 7 are not required to be met.
8. Regarding claim 8, see the explanation of claims 1 and 6. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 8 are not required to be met.
9. Regarding claim 10, Shang discloses the region calibration method according to claim 1, wherein the displaying a candidate region selected by region drawing operation in a simulated image for simulating the target scene in response to the region drawing operation performed on the scene image collected by the first image collection apparatus, comprises: generating a closed image region on the scene image in response to a plurality of position points where preset operation is executed on the scene image (figs 2, 4-6, paras 0039-40 shows and discloses wherein the displaying a candidate region selected by region drawing operation in a simulated image for simulating the target scene in response to the region drawing operation performed on the scene image collected by the first image collection apparatus, comprises: generating a closed image region on the scene image in response to a plurality of position points where preset operation is executed on the scene image (i.e volumetric modeling operations is performed on the scene image (i.e feature matching) as disclosed in para 0040) meeting the above claim limitations), and/or (Examiner notes that due to the recital of or in the claim, the strike through limitations are not required by the current claim).
10. Regarding claim 11, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 11 are not required to be met.
11. Regarding claim 12, see the explanation of claims 1 and 11. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 12 are not required to be met.
12. Regarding claim 13 depending on claim 1, see the explanation of claim 1. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 13 are not required to be met.
13. Regarding claim 14, see the explanation of claims 1 and 13. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 13 are not required to be met.
14. Regarding claim 15, see the explanation of claims 1 and 13. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 15 are not required to be met.
15. Regarding claim 17, see the explanation of claims 1 and 13. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 17 are not required to be met.
16. Regarding claim 20, see the explanation of claims 1 and 13. Due to the recital of at least one first image collection apparatus (i.e only one first image collection apparatus is required by the claim 1), the limitations recited in claim 20 are not required to be met.
17. Claim 25 is a corresponding device claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Shang shows the electronic device in fig 1.
18. Regarding claim 26 see the explanation of claim 1. Shang shows the computer-readable storage medium (memory 102), wherein a computer program stored therein (106) causes a processor (104) to execute the region calibration method according to claim 1 in fig 1.
19. Claim 27 is a corresponding device claim of claim 13. See the corresponding explanation of claim 13.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights