DETAILED ACTION
Status
This Office Action is responsive to claims filed on 1/13/2025. Please note Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined.
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) submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11727657. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11727657.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12198288. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of instant application are anticipated by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12198288.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12198288
U.S. Patent No. 11727657
1. A system for generating one or more images of an automobile, the system comprising:
1. A system for generating an image of an automobile, the system comprising:
Claim 1. A system comprising: …
Claim 4. … identify an automobile; … and wherein at least a portion of the one or more training images are labeled with: a make of the automobile; a model of the automobile; and a body type of the automobile.
one or more processors; and
one or more processors; and
Claim 1. …one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices storing computing instructions configured to communicate with the one or more processors and cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices storing computing instructions configured to communicate with the one or more processors and cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices storing computing instructions configured to run on the one or more processors causing the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
generating an artificial surface using the one or more images of the automobile;
generating an artificial surface for a 3D model of the automobile;
generating a mask of an object using one or more images; generating a 3D model of the object using the mask of the object; simulating an artificial 3D capture environment for the 3D model of the object; generating an artificial surface for the 3D model of the object in the artificial 3D capture environment; transferring the artificial surface for the 3D model of the object to the one or more images; and
simulating reflections or shadows of the automobile on the artificial surface using one or more physical based rendering properties of the artificial surface;
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, wherein the generating the artificial surface comprises generating the artificial surface comprising simulated reflections or simulated shadows for the 3D model of the automobile.
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, wherein the generating the artificial surface for the object in the artificial 3D capture environment comprises: simulating reflections and shadows for the object in the artificial 3D capture environment by reflecting artificial light for the artificial 3D capture environment off of the 3D model of the object…
blending the artificial surface for the automobile with a real-world surface of the automobile to create a blended surface that comprises both the artificial surface and the real-world surface; and
Claim 1. …blending the artificial surface for the 3D model of the automobile with a real- world surface of the automobile to create a blended surface that comprises both the artificial surface and the real-world surface; and
Claim 1. …blending the artificial surface for the 3D model of the object with a real-world surface in the one or more images to create a blended surface that (1) comprises both the artificial surface and the real-world surface and (2) has a higher cleanliness level than the real world surface when displayed on an electronic device.
generating the one or more images of the automobile comprising the blended surface.
generating the image of the automobile, the image comprising the blended surface, wherein the blended surface has a higher cleanliness level than the real-world surface while the image is displayed on an electronic device.
Claim 7. The system of claim 1, further comprising: facilitating displaying a 3D display of the object using the one or more images, the 3D display comprising the artificial surface for the object and the real-world surface for the object.
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.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are 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 5 recites “an average of a plurality of real-world photography studios”. It’s unclear what an “average” of a plurality of “studios” means.
Claims 12 and 19 recite similar features of claim 5, and are therefore rejected.
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 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes. The claims recite a method comprising multiple steps, but none of the recited steps is performed by hardware elements. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” to be an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite any hardware element.
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 of this title, 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, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US 20220277512 A1), in view of Sanor (US 20220189124 A1) and BOND (US 20220284662 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ito discloses a system for generating one or more images of an object, the system comprising:
one or more processors ([0007] “one or more processors”); and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage devices storing computing instructions configured to communicate with the one or more processors and cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising ([0007] “one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors that, upon executing the stored instructions, perform: …”):
generating an artificial surface using the one or more images of the object (Fig. 4, S404. [0046] “At step S404, the 3D model generating unit 230 generates a 3D model, based on the generated silhouette image and the camera parameters obtained from the parameter obtaining unit 220.”);
blending the artificial surface for the object with a real-world surface of the object to create a blended surface ([0063] “At step S1105, the rendering unit 270, having set the virtual viewpoint obtained from the virtual viewpoint setting unit 260 as the view point, projects the corrected 3D model, which was obtained from the 3D model correcting unit 250, onto a 2D (two-dimensional) plane. At step S1106, the rendering unit 270 selects images captured by one or more cameras close to the virtual viewpoint among the cameras 110a to 110m, based on the camera parameters obtained from the parameter obtaining unit 220 and, using the images, performs coloring/texture pasting on the 3D model projected onto the 2D plane.”); and
generating the one or more images of the object comprising the blended surface ([0040] “The virtual viewpoint is input from the input apparatus 140, and the generated virtual viewpoint image is output to the display apparatus 150.”).
Ito does not expressly disclose the object is an automobile, and the blended surface comprises both the artificial surface and the real-world surface. Ito also fails to disclose simulating reflections or shadows of the automobile on the artificial surface using one or more physical based rendering properties of the artificial surface.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sanor discloses generating an artificial surface using the one or more images of the automobile ([0034] “The computing device 102 may be used to develop multi-dimensional wireframe models for objects such as vehicles and virtual accessories.”) and blending the artificial surface for the automobile with a real-world surface of the automobile to create a blended surface that comprises both the artificial surface and the real-world surface ([0032] “For example, the multi-dimensional wireframe model may be a three-dimensional spatial model that may appear as overlaying portions of an image (e.g., still image, live video stream, recorded video, etc.) of an object (e.g., a vehicle) within a physical environment.” [0035] “In embodiments, the computing device 102 the data stored in these databases to associate a virtual object (e.g., a virtual component) with a portion of the virtual wireframe model such that the virtual object may appear precisely positioned on or integrated with a real-world object within the augmented reality environment.” [0062] “FIG. 11 depicts an example virtual accessory corresponding to the identified object being presented as a seamless component added to the identified object within the real-world environment on the display of the device, according to one or more embodiments described and illustrated herein.”).
BOND discloses simulating reflections or shadows of the automobile on the artificial surface using one or more physical based rendering properties of the artificial surface ([0058] “For example, in 3D computer graphics, ray tracing is a rendering technique for generating an image by tracing a path of light as pixels in an image plane and simulating effects of its encounters with virtual objects. Ray tracing can simulate many optical effects such as reflection, refraction, scattering, and dispersion phenomena such as chromatic aberration.” Or [0059] “Path tracing is a form of ray tracing that can produce soft shadows, depth of field, motion blur, caustics, ambient occlusion, and direct lighting. Path tracing is an unbiased rendering method, but a large number of rays have to be traced to obtain high quality reference images without noisy artifacts.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the system of Ito with the feature of generating and blending an artificial surface for an automobile model, simulating reflections or shadows of the automobile on the artificial surface, and comprising both the artificial surface and the real-world surface within the blended surface. Doing so could “seamlessly integrate virtual and real-world objects in an augmented reality environment” and “improve a customer's decision making and purchasing experience”, as taught by Sanor.
Regarding Claim 2, Ito-Sanor-BOND discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the artificial surface comprises a floor of a photography studio where the one or more images of the automobile were taken (Ito [0032] “In the present embodiment, a plurality of cameras 110a to 110m serving as a plurality of image capturing devices are arranged in a manner surrounding the interior of a studio 100 in which images are supposed to be captured.” Sanor [0048] “In embodiments, a user may recognize the type of a vehicle located within a certain proximity of the user in a physical environment of the user, e.g., on the showroom floor of a car show, on the floor of a dealership, etc.”), and wherein the one or more physical based rendering properties of the artificial surface comprise one or more physical based rendering properties of the floor of the photography studio (BOND [0058] “Ray tracing can simulate many optical effects such as reflection, refraction, scattering, and dispersion phenomena such as chromatic aberration.” Examiner notes that ray tracing teaches physical based rendering properties of the surface/floor, or at least render the feature obvious).
Regarding Claim 4, Ito-Sanor-BOND discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the simulating the reflections or the shadows of the automobile comprises simulating the reflections or the shadows of the automobile on the artificial surface using the one or more physical based rendering properties of the artificial surface and a simulated photography studio (BOND [0043] “At 212, control (e.g., the combining module 116) combines the transformed 3D perspectives of the objects and of the background to generate a 3D scene representing the first data.” [0058] “Ray tracing can simulate many optical effects such as reflection, refraction, scattering, and dispersion phenomena such as chromatic aberration.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Ito-Sanor-BOND discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the simulated photography studio comprises a scan of a real-world photography studio with no automobiles (BOND [0044] “At 214, a second set of sensors (e.g., the second set of sensors 106) arranged in a second configuration senses the 3D scene to generate a 3D representation of the 3D scene.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Ito-Sanor-BOND discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising facilitating displaying a 3D display of the automobile comprising the one or more images of the automobile (Ito [0072] “At step S1401, the rendering unit 270 determines whether the virtual viewpoint image to be output is 2D or 3D. i.e., which of 2D rendering or 3D rendering is to be performed… 3D rendering is a method of rendering the 3D model itself independent of the virtual viewpoint.”).
Regarding Claim 8, it recites similar limitations of claim 1. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, it recites similar limitations of claim 2. The rationale of claim 2 rejection is applied to reject claim 9.
Regarding Claim 11, it recites similar limitations of claim 4. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 11.
Regarding Claim 13, it recites similar limitations of claim 6. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, it recites similar limitations of claim 7. The rationale of claim 7 rejection is applied to reject claim 14.
Regarding Claim 15, it recites similar limitations of claim 1. The rationale of claim 1 rejection is applied to reject claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, it recites similar limitations of claim 2. The rationale of claim 2 rejection is applied to reject claim 16.
Regarding Claim 18, it recites similar limitations of claim 4. The rationale of claim 4 rejection is applied to reject claim 18.
Regarding Claim 20, it recites similar limitations of claim 6. The rationale of claim 6 rejection is applied to reject claim 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Williams (US 20200410767 A1) – this reference discloses a content generation system for generating content for display including one or more objects to be rendered, the system comprising an element defining unit operable to define a plurality of virtual elements, a parameter setting unit operable to set one or more parameters associated with each of the plurality of virtual elements, and a content generating unit operable to generate content for display using the plurality of virtual elements and corresponding parameter values, wherein the parameter setting unit is operable to set the one or more parameters in accordance with the output of a machine learning algorithm adapted to determine appropriate parameters for the plurality of virtual elements so as to simulate an object to be rendered.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONG WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5207. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI: 9AM-5PM 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, Xiao Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/CHONG WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights