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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,065 B2 (herein referenced as “Hemmer”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the scope of claims in the instant application are covered by the scope of claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,065 B2.
As per claim 1, Hemmer teaches Hemmer teaches a method for predicting color variance using a proxy: generating a first 3D object proxy based on a stored 3D object proxy (claim 1, “generating a first 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object”); generating a second 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object (claim 2, generating a second 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object”); transforming the first 3D object proxy based on a 3D object identified in a frame of a video (claim 1, “transforming the first 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in the frame”); transforming the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in a key frame of the video (claim 2, “transforming the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in the key frame”); mapping color attributes from the 3D object identified in the frame of the video to the transformed first 3D object proxy (claim 2, “mapping color attributes from the 3D object to the transformed first 3D object proxy”); mapping color attributes from the 3D object identified in the key frame to the transformed second 3D object proxy (claim 2, “mapping color attributes from the 3D object identified in the key frame to the transformed second 3D object proxy”); generating color data for the 3D object based on the color attributes for the transformed first 3D object proxy and the color attributes for the transformed second 3D object proxy (claim 2, “generating color attributes for the 3D object based on the color attributes for the transformed first 3D object proxy and the color attributes for the transformed second 3D object proxy”).
As per claim 11, Hemmer teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instruction for predicting color variance using a proxy stored thereon that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause a computing system: generate a first 3D object proxy based on a stored 3D object (claim 1, “generating a first 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object”); generate a second 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object (claim 2, “generating a second 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object”); transform the first 3D object proxy based on a 3D object identified in a frame of a video (claim 1, “transforming the first 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in the frame”); transform the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object proxy identified in a key frame of the video data (claim 2, “transforming the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in the key frame”); map color attributes from the 3D object identified in the frame of the video to the transformed first 3D object proxy (claim 2, “mapping color attributes from the 3D object to the transformed first 3D object proxy”); map color attributes color attributes from the 3D objects identified in the key frame to the transformed second 3D object proxy (claim 2, “mapping color attributes from the 3D object identified in the key frame to the transformed second 3D object proxy”); and generate color data from the 3D object based on the color attributes for the transformed first 3D object proxy and the color attributes for the transformed second 3D object proxy (claim 2, “generating color attributes for the 3D object based on the color attributes for the transformed first 3D object proxy and the color attributes for the transformed second 3D object proxy”).
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,109,065 B2 (herein referenced as “Hemmer”) in view of Kameyama et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0052045 A1).
As per clam 16, Hemmer teaches an apparatus comprising: generate a first 3D object proxy based on a stored 3D object (claim 1, “generating a first 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object”); generate a second 3D object proxy based on a stored 3D object (claim 2, “generating a second 3D object proxy based on the stored 3D object”); transform the first 3D object proxy based on a 3D object identified in a frame of a video (claim 1, “transforming the first 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in the frame”); transform the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in a key frame of the video (claim 2, “transforming the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in the key frame”); map color attributes from the 3D object identified in the frame of the video to the transformed first 3D object proxy (claim 2, “mapping color attributes from the 3D object to the transformed first 3D object proxy” ); map color attributes from the 3D object identified in the key frame to the transformed second 3D object proxy (claim 2, “mapping color attributes from the 3D object identified in the key frame to the transformed second 3D object proxy”); and generate color data for the 3D object based on the color attributes for the transformed first 3D object proxy and the color attributes for the transformed second 3D object proxy (claim 2, “generating color attributes for the 3D object based on the color attributes for the transformed first 3D object proxy and the color attributes for the transformed second 3D object proxy”). Hemmer does not explicitly disclose a processor; and a memory storing instructions for predicting color variance using a proxy stored thereon, that when executed by the processor, as recited in claim 16.
However, Kameyama teaches a processor (fig. 21 el. 1500), and a memory storing instructions for predicting color variance using a proxy stored thereon (fig. 2 el. 260-280 and [0015], [0112], [0241-0242]; “… the model generating section 260 compares, with the image of each portion, an image obtained by changing a color difference and luminance from those of a reference model, to identify the color difference information and the luminance information matching, in color, the image of each portion at the highest degree. Note that some examples of the amount of change are the aspect ratio, the color difference information, and the luminance information. In this way, the model generating section 260 generates an object model represented by a reference model and difference information (e.g., amount of change)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kameyama with Hemmer for the benefit of providing improved model generation and representation.
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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16 which recites “… transforming the second 3D object proxy based on the 3D object identified in a key frame of the video …” The specification discloses in paragraph [0079], the 3D object locator module 305 can be configured to identify and locate a 3D object in the frame 110 and the key frame 320 (herein after referred to as the 3D object). It is unclear what is to be considered as the “key frame”.
Regarding claims 2-10, 12-15 and 17-20 are rejected based upon claim dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10, 12-15, and 17-20 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:
White et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0173826), “Transforming Object Model Data”
Linaker et al., (U.S. Patent No. 11,182,951 B2), “3D Object Modeling Using Scale Parameters and Estimated Distance”.
Hemmer et al., (U.S. Patent No. 10,891,758 B2), “Geometry Encoder”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486