CTNF 19/207,445 CTNF 89258 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. 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 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. There are a total of 20 claims and claims 1-20 are pending. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/04/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are substantially similar in scope and they use the same limitations, using varying terminology, and the claims are obvious variants of each other because: The independent claims 1, 9, and 16 of the current application include broader limitations of the independent claims 1, 9 and 16 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitations of claims 1, 9 and 16 of the current application can be read on the limitations of the independent claims 1,9 and 16 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 2, 10 of the current application can be read on limitations of claims 2, 10 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 3 and 11 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 3 and 11 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 4, 12, 17 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 4 ,12 and 17 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 5, 13, 18 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 5, 13 and 18 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 6, 14, 19 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 6, 14 and 19 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 7 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 7 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . The limitation of claim 8, 15, 20 of the current application can be read on limitations of claim 8, 15, 20 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . Nonetheless, claims 1-20 of the present application made the claim a broader version of claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . Therefore, since omission of an element and its function in a combination is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same functions as before (In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963)), claim 1-20 is not patentably distinct from claim 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,327,413 B2 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1-4,6-12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Sypitkowski et al. (US 10,166,921 B2) . Regarding claim 1, Sypitkowski discloses One or more processors comprising processing circuitry to: determine, using frames of image data that represent overlapping views of an environment surrounding an ego-machine ([col. 5, lines 16-21] image data from each of the cameras 14, 16, 18, 20 is stitched together and then used to perform optimized color matching. FIG. 4A shows the overhead view of the vehicle -an image that is generated by the controller 22 and displayed to the driver of the vehicle" figs. 4A-4B-), a reference frame and a target frame ([col. 6, lines 5-7]- the controller designates one camera as a "Master" (at step 52). In this example, the rear view camera 14 is designated as the "Master", fig. 5; col. 6, lines 8-11 :"This method matches the brightness and color for the other cameras 16, 18, 2.Q_to the brightness and color of the Master camera 14 by comparing overlapping areas in each region of interest (e.g., areas 40, 42, 44, 46 of FIGS. 4A-4E); generate a ground projection of the reference frame based at least on projecting the reference frame onto a representation of a ground plane ([col. 5, lines 23-27]- The field of view of each respective camera includes a portion of the ground. The image data from each respective camera is processed by the controller 22 to generate a simulated overhead view of at least a portion of the ground within the field of view of the camera. This ground portion is referred to herein as a "region of interest" for each respective camera."; col. 8, lines 37-45:"The AFAIR module can create multiple concatenated camera views it is possible to generate a 3D perspective and a top-view perspective concurrently. When this occurs, a top perspective view is generated and buffered outside the viewable range and used to perform the camera matching in the exact same manner as in the standard top view matching); compute a reference property of at least a portion of the ground projection of the reference frame ([col. 6, lines 11-34]- Cmavgrgb is the average RGB color value from the overlapping region of the master camera" and equation); and transfer the reference property of at least the portion of the ground projection of the reference frame to the target frame ([col. 6, lines 11-50]- equations (1) and (2) where gain factors are determined using "Cmavgrgb"; col. 7, lines 1-6:"After appropriate gain factors are determined for each color component for each side camera, the controller 22 applies the gain factors to the video input streams from the side cameras 16, 18 thereby adjusting the RGB color levels of the images captured by the side cameras 16, 18 to match the colors of the rear camera 14 image (at step 60)). Regarding claim 2, Sypitkowski discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to select one of the frames of image data as the reference frame based at least on one or more of: a direction of ego-motion of the ego-machine, an active viewport into the environment, or a gaze of an operator of the ego-machine([col. 6, lines 4-7)]- discloses to select the rear camera among the cameras of the surround view system as the master camera, but other cameras could also be selected). Regarding claim 3, Sypitkowski discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to generate the ground projection of the reference frame based at least on projecting the reference frame onto a three-dimensional (3D) bowl to generate a projected 3D bowl representation, and using a portion of the projected 3D bowl representation corresponding to the ground plane of the environment as the ground projection of the reference frame([col. 8, lines 37-45]- The AFAIR module can create multiple concatenated camera views it is possible to generate a 3D perspective and a top-view perspective concurrently). Regarding claim 4, Sypitkowski discloses wherein the reference and target frames represent different views of the environment in a same time slice, and the processing circuitry is further to transfer the reference property of at least the portion of the ground projection of the reference frame to the target frame based at least on a determination that an overlapping region between the ground projection of the reference frame and a second ground projection of the target frame has less than or equal to a threshold number of pixels that belong to a detected object([col. 8, lines 6-16]- ln most situations when two adjacent cameras are looking at the ground plane, it may be appropriate to assume that the two camera video images are very similar. However. there are situations when one camera sees objects that the other camera does not. This can lead to inappropriate gain calculations. A solution for this type of scenario is to either limit). Regarding claim 6, Sypitkowski discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to compute the reference property of at least the portion of the ground projection of the reference frame based at least on computing the reference property from a majority cluster of the ground projection of the reference frame, and to transfer the reference property from the majority cluster of the ground projection of the reference frame to the target frame based at least on a determination that an overlapping region between the ground projection of the reference frame and a second([col. 8, lines 6-16]- ln most situations when two adjacent cameras are looking at the ground plane, it may be appropriate to assume that the two camera video images are very similar. However. there are situations when one camera sees objects that the other camera does not. This can lead to inappropriate gain calculations. A solution for this type of scenario is to either limit). Regarding claim 7, Sypitkowski discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further to generate a modified target frame based at least on transferring the reference property of at least the portion of the ground projection of the reference frame to the target frame, stitch at least the reference frame and the modified target frame into a stitched image, and cause presentation of a visualization based at least on the stitched image([col. 4, lines 62-67]- The controller 22 is also configured to process the image data received from the cameras 14, 16, 18, 20 and stitch them together to create a simulated overhead view of the vehicle 12 in its surroundings (a surround view) as shown in the left-side image of FIG. 3. The two images of FIG. 3 can be shown on the display simultaneously"; col. 5, line 65 - col 6, line 2:"FIG. 5 illustrates an example of one such color-matching routine that adjusts for individual color component errors in overlapping portions 40, 42, 44, 46 where video images from two cameras are combined to create the simulated overhead surround image). Regarding claim 8, Sypitkowski discloses wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing real-time streaming; a system for presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for generating synthetic data; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources([col. 3, lines 19-21]- FIG. 6 is display image generated and displayed by the system of FIG. 1 showing a front 3D virtual perspective view of a SUV vehicle."; col. 8, lines 17-23 fig. 6) for a system for presenting a virtual reality content). Regarding claim 9, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 9 have been met in claim 1. Regarding claim 10, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 2. Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 3. Regarding claim 12, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4. Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6. Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8. Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1. Hence; all limitations for claim 16 have been met in claim 1. Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4. Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6. Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 5, 13 and 18 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claim 5, The one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the reference frame represents at least a portion of the environment from a preceding time slice, the target frame represents at least a portion of the environment from a subsequent time slice, and the processing circuitry is further to transfer the reference property of at least the portion of the ground projection of the reference frame based at least on a determination that an overlapping region between a second ground projection of a candidate reference frame from the subsequent time slice and a third ground projection of the target frame includes more than a threshold number or percentage of pixels that correspond to a detected object. Citation of Pertinent Prior Art The prior art are made of record and not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: 1. Ibrahim et al., US 2015/0302561 A1, discloses Method a method and system for performing geometric calibration for a surround view camera solution. 2. Hua et. al., US 2021/0209737 A1, discloses method for error handling in a geometric correction engine (GCE) is provided that includes receiving configuration parameters by the GCE. 3. Dabral et al., US 2021/0027522 A1, discloses a technique for surround view. 4. Hartmann et al., US 2020/0406897 A1, discloses method for classifying a roadway condition on the basis of image data from a camera . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MD NAZMUL HAQUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5328. The examiner can normally be reached IFW. 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, David Czekaj can be reached on 5712727327. 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. /MD N HAQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 2 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 3 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 4 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 5 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 6 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 7 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 8 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 9 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 10 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 11 Art Unit: 2487 Application/Control Number: 19/207,445 Page 12 Art Unit: 2487
Prosecution Insights