DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Examiner’s Comments
Prior art to Chen US 5535288 A (SIMD dsp implementation in video processing) which are not currently relied upon but may be relevant to the claims.
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.
Claim 1-14,21-26 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12058306. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the application claim 1 claims a broader version of the same system claimed by the patent claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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 –
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claim(s) 1-4,6-14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102a as being anticipated by Liu et al (US 20100014781 A1).
As per claim 1, Liu discloses a method comprising: receiving a set of video images representing a moving object from a perspective;
predicting (per para 56, via the neural network and example/training database) a state of at least one hidden surface of the moving object (para. 70, the application as applied to video processing , where a video provides multiple images/objects over time which indicate movement of objects in the video) based on an object lookup in a database (digital image database), and a prior viewing of the hidden surface (the training and machine learning of the neural network using example images in a database is a prior viewing of hidden surfaces) ; and
generating a view of the object comprising the predicted state of the at least one hidden surface (the 2d-3d conversion of the objects, para 42).
As per claim 2, the method according to claim 1, wherein the view comprises a view from a second perspective different from the perspective (other viewing angles per para 101).
As per claim 3, the method according to claim 2, wherein the view comprises a set of stereoscopic video images (para 88: multiple stereo views in the stereoscopic display. For example, four or nine views may be provided).
As per claim 4, the method according to claim 1, further comprising generating a three dimensional model of the object from the video images (via the depth value model processing described in para 88 as used to produce the 3d video of the recognized objects).
As per claim 6, the method according to claim 1, further comprising identifying the moving object (the identified objects in the video move over time), and using the identification to look up the moving object in the database (the database per para 56).
As per claim 7, the method according to claim 1, wherein the view comprises synthetic motion (the synthentic 3d image conversion as applied to a video where any motion of the 3d elements in the 3d video are synthetic).
As per claim 8, the method according to claim 1, further comprising looking up a record associated with the moving object to determine a state of a hidden surface in at least one two-dimensional image (the training images and or examples in the database per para 99, as used to determine a state of a surface/convert form 2d to 3d).
As per claim 9, Liu discloses: a method comprising:
receiving a representation of at least one two-dimensional image (the video images per the claim 1 rejection);
predicting a characteristic of a hidden surface of at least one object in the two- dimensional image based on a history of the at least one object and [[an]] at least one object record (prediction based on object history via the neural network implementation per para 56, object lookup in a database per the claim 1 rejection); and
visually representing the at least one object comprising the hidden surface (generating a view, claim 1 rejection).
As per claim 10, the method according to claim 9, further comprising identifying the object using automated pattern recognition (the neural network per para 56, and the image database cited above).
As per claim 11, the method according to claim 9, further comprising transforming a perspective of the at least one two-dimensional image to a different perspective (2d-3d para 70)).
As per claim 12, the method according to claim 11, wherein the transforming comprises converting the at least one two-dimensional image to a three dimensional image (para 70).
As per claim 13, the method according to claim 11, wherein at least one two dimensional image comprises a video image, and the transformation of the at least one two- dimensional image to the three dimensional image occurs in real time at a rate of the video image (para 70,such as the real-time 2D to 3D conversion).
Claims 15-20. (Cancelled).
As per claim 14, the method according to claim 9, further comprising identifying an object in the at least one two-dimensional image (per the database processes cited above); and
retrieving the object record comprising a model of the object, from a repository selectively dependent in the identification of the object (via the image databases cited above,
wherein the model comprises data describing the hidden surface (the 2d-3d conversion model comprises said data as part of the synthesized 3d surfaces output as the 3d image or video).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5,14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20100014781 A1).
As per claim 5, the method according to claim 1, wherein Liu discloses the predicting is performed with a processor, but does not specify using a single-instruction multiple-data (SIMD) processor.
The examiner takes official notice it was well known in the art at the time of filing that to implement SIMD architecture in processors for the purpose of compatibility with extremely well known standards and architectures. Noting the Chen reference mentioned above in the examiner’s comments may be relevant.
As per claim 14, the method according to claim 11, further comprising transforming information of a series comprising a plurality of the two-dimensional images with a single-instruction, multiple-data (SIMD) processor (per the combination of the claim 5 rejection).
Claim 23-25 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20100014781 A1).
As per claim 23, a method comprising: receiving, as an input, a representation of an ordered set of two-dimensional images of an object in a scene (the realtime 2d to 3d video processing per para 70);
automatically classifying the object into a respective class based on the analysis of the ordered set of two-dimensional images (the foreground and background classifications per para 77) ;
performing a database lookup using the respective class to retrieve a three-dimensional model corresponding to the object (per para 51, the digital image database, further noting and further may be formed by classifying the images per para 51, as used for the 2d-2d video conversion cited above),
wherein the three-dimensional model comprises at least one hidden region of the object that is not visible in the ordered set of two-dimensional images (the portion of the model that produces the synthesized 3d surfaces from the 2d input video or image);
generating a three-dimensional representation of the scene depicted in the ordered set of two-dimensional images, comprising the at least one hidden region of the object (the 3d converted video); and
providing as output an indicia of the three-dimensional representation of the scene comprising the at least one hidden region of the object (the depth map per para 51).
However the particular embodiment does not specifically state the source of the 2d images and or video.
Liu discloses the color based processing per para 74 is based on "COLOR TRANSFORMATION FOR COLOR CONSISTENCY ACROSS VIDEO CAMERA IMAGES,". Where it would be obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing that the cited 2d input images or video could come from the well known device such as a camera for the purpose of capturing the desired video.
As per claim 24, the method of claim 23, wherein the database lookup comprises accessing a local catalog stored on a device executing the receiving, analyzing, classifying, and database lookup (the image data base cited above).
As per claim 25, the method of claim 23, further comprising: predicting a shape and a color of the at least one hidden region based on the retrieved three-dimensional model (as per the 3d output images or video, which are based on the input 2d video, which is defined by shapes and colors, noting the color matching per para 74 );
and rendering the three-dimensional representation such that the at least one hidden surface is viewable from a perspective different from a perspective of the first view (2d-3d video conversion).
As per claim 22, the method according to claim 21, wherein the history of the at least one object comprises a movement of the object in a scene represented by a plurality of two dimensional images (the 3d processing of video).
Claim 26 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liu et al (US 20100014781 A1) as applied to claim 23 and further in view of Zhang US 20110096832 A1
As per claim 26, Liu discloses the method of claim 23, but does not specify further comprising extracting a motion vector corresponding to ordered set of two-dimensional images, and providing the output in dependence on the motion vector.
Zhang discloses video surface/pixel synthesis for occluded surface compensation in 2d-3d video conversion (the 2d video is the ordered set of 2d images), and teaches to characterize the objects with motion vectors (para 108) in order to create a realtime 2d-3d framework. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of filing to implement motion vector to describe the objects for the purpose of better integration with a codec in a 2d-3d realtime video conversion system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN whose telephone number is 571-272-7498, and whose email address is alexander.krzystan@uspto.gov
The examiner can usually be reached on m-f 7:30-4:00 est.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone or email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carolyn Edwards can be reached on (571) 270-7136.
The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications and 571-273-8300 for After Final communications.
/ALEXANDER KRZYSTAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2653
Examiner Alexander Krzystan
July 29, 2026
