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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 11,689,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,316,824. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,848,748. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claim is broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Annau et al. (2016/0191815).
Regarding claim 1, Annau discloses an image processing apparatus (103), comprising: one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instruction to:
determine a foreground object region (note par. 34; par. 52; and par. 65, the ISP 115a compresses the raw video data based on the motion of the foreground moving object; and note the MPEG format mentioned in par. 40, which compresses the image frames based on motion data in the frames; the motion data indicates the object information in the foreground of the frames) in an image captured by an image capturing apparatus (111a);
generate first data based on a the determined foreground object region (the compressed data as described in par. 65);
obtain, from another image processing apparatus (103) which is connected to the image processing apparatus (note connection 114, 116, 118), second data (compressed data as described in par. 65) generates based on a foreground object region (note par. 52; and par. 65, the ISP 115b compresses the raw video data based on the motion of the foreground moving object) that said another image processing apparatus determines in an image captured by another image capturing apparatus (111b…111n); and
transmit the generated first data and the obtained second data (note the connections in between camera module 103 and connection hub 123) to an image generating apparatus which generates an image based on the generated first data and the obtained second data (note aggregation system 131 and par. 87 and 109).
Regarding claim 2, Annau discloses the one or more processors further execute the instruction to separate the foreground object region and a background object region in the image. That is, the MPEG format in Annau inherently separates the motion object from the still background.
Regarding claim 3, Annau discloses the generation of the first data by the image processing apparatus and the generation of the second data by the second image processing apparatus are performed in parallel (note ISP 115a-115n in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 4, Annau discloses the image processing apparatus does not transmit image data which does not represent the foreground object region in the image. That is, in MPEG format compression, motion image data of an object traverses across multiple frames is transmitted while one frame of the still background is transmitted.
Regarding claim 5, Annau discloses the foreground object region includes a region of a moving object. That is, the MPEG format in Annau includes motion data of a foreground object.
Regarding claim 6, Annau discloses that at least one of a region of a person and a region of a ball is included in the foreground object region. That is, the camera modules 103 in Annau is intended to capture object images from the physical world and the objects being captured can be anything, such as a person or a ball as claimed.
Regarding claims 7 and 8, see rejection to claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on the double patenting rejections that HANDA, or applicant’s patents, does not disclose the following:
determine a foreground object region in an image captured by an image capturing apparatus;
generate first data based on the determined foreground object region;
obtain, from another image processing apparatus which is connected to the image processing apparatus, second data which said another image processing apparatus generates based on a foreground object region that said another image processing apparatus determines in an image captured by another image capturing apparatus; and
transmit the generated first data and the obtained second data to an image generating apparatus which generates an image based on the generated first data and the obtained second data.
The examiner disagrees. It is believed that all applicant’s patented claims are narrower than the claimed invention. For instance, claim 1 of patent no. 12,316,824 clearly anticipates applicant’s current claim 1. That is, the first image processing apparatus meets the first data generating operation as claimed; the second image processing apparatus meets the second data obtaining operation as claimed, the image generating apparatus meets the image generating apparatus as claimed; and the transmitting operation by the first image processing apparatus meets the transmitting operation as claimed. Since the instant application claims are still anticipated by the patented claims, the double patenting rejection is maintained.
Regarding the 102 prior art rejection, applicant has presented the following arguments:
However, ANNAU does not disclose the configuration described in the presently
amended claim. In particular, ANNAU does not disclose at least "generate first data based on the determined foreground object region; obtain, from another image processing apparatus which is connected to the image processing apparatus, second data which said another image processing apparatus generates based on a foreground object region that said another image processing apparatus determines in an image captured by another image capturing apparatus; and transmit the generated first data and the obtained second data to an image generating apparatus which generates an image based on the generated first data and the obtained second data" as presently claimed.
The examiner disagrees. As set forth in the rejection, the “foreground object region” feature is met by the same object as described in par. 52 of Annau. According to par. 52, the same object is being viewed by a plurality of cameras at different angles. The same object capturing operation is also being summarized in par. 34. The same object as described in Annau is an object being viewed at the field of view of the multiple cameras at different angles. In other words, the object being viewed by the cameras is at the foreground of the cameras. Thus, the field of view of the object in Annau clearly meets the “foreground object region” as claimed.
In view of above arguments, it is clear that fails to overcome the double patenting rejection and the prior art rejection. As a result, all the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights