N O N - F I N A L A C T I O N
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) submitted on 6/23/25, 12/16/25 and 8/18/26 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Examiner notes that the current title is a good starting point but recommends adding analogous language to “RADAR AND A CAMERA” and “ELECTRIC IMAGE STABILIZATION” into the current title. For example, Examiner recommends the following amended new title:
“ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING RADAR AND A CAMERA AND METHOD FOR MOTION PREDICTION AND ELECTRIC IMAGE STABILIZATION CROPPING”
OR
“ELECTRONIC DEVICE COMPRISING RADAR AND A CAMERA FOR MOTION PREDICTION AND ELECTRIC IMAGE STABILIZATION CROPPING AND METHOD THEREOF”
Closest Prior Art
The prior art (cited on PTO-892) is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Among these, the following references are considered to be the closest, collectively disclosing the state of the art concerned with an electronic device comprising a digital camera sensor and RADAR configured for motion prediction and electric image stabilization cropping.
JANSSON (US 20230199295) – which disclosure is fully supported by the provisional application US 63/292,379, dated 12/21/2021, predating the effective filing date of the present claims – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see below.
YOO (US 20170034410) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see below.
WU SONG-YUAN (CN-111626217-A) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, (English translation attached), see below.
LIANIDES (US 20220105389) – applied to 35 USC 103 rejection, see Abstract, discloses an imaging and analyzing motion wherein the spatial information further comprises a frame-level confidence indicator by frames being analyzed to generate confidence data, see para [0005, 0032, 0038].
KULIK (US 20200137308) – see Abstract, Fig. 2, Fig. 13-15, and para [0034, 0061, 0075, 0092], discloses Electric Image Stabilization (EIS) cropping which reduces an image size to maintain visual stability based on the spatial information and the image captured by the camera.
LUO JIE (CN-114119659-A) – (English translation attached), see Abstract, discloses a target tracking method of multi-sensor fusion, the method comprises: obtaining radar sensing data and image sensing data of the vehicle; according to the radar sensing data, determining three-dimensional point cloud data corresponding to each first target identified by the radar; according to the image sensing data, determining two-dimensional image information corresponding to each second target identified by the camera; according to the transformation matrix of the combined calibration of the radar and the camera, projecting the three-dimensional point cloud data to the two-dimensional image information, forming target fusion data; according to the target fusion data, performing target tracking. Also discloses using Kalman filtering, performing motion state estimation to the detection target frame at the current time, determining the prediction target frame corresponding to the next time.
NOTE: Examiner welcomes INTERVIEW(s) to discuss the instant application’s claimed invention as it corresponds to the specification embodiments, as well as, discussing the similarities/differences taught/not taught by prior art. In the interest of compact prosecution, Applicant’s arguments/amendments should not only address the cited closest art applied/relied on in the 35 USC 102/103 rejection (below), but also address the other cited closest art not applied/relied on.
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANSSON (US 20230199295, having provisional application US 63/292,379, dated 12/21/2021) in view of YOO (US 20170034410) in view of WU SONG-YUAN (CN-111626217-A) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1, JANSSON teaches a method for motion prediction (Fig. 2: processor 200/212 method for camera control 230 for predicting object trajectory in Fig. 3), comprising:
receiving spatial information output by a radio-wave sensor (Fig. 1A, para [0012, 0044]: sensor unit 110 may be radar), wherein the spatial information comprises position and velocity of at least one point (Fig. 3 in view of para [0026-27, 0032, 0036, 0044]: ball position and ball speed);
receiving an image captured by a camera (Fig. 1A-1B and Fig. 3 in view of para [0022, 0024]: camera);
Regarding the limitation (emphasis in bold): “determining, based on the spatial information and the image, that a motion of at least one object is a local motion if the motion of the at least one object is inconsistent with most other objects; determining, based on the spatial information and the image, that the motion of the at least one object is a global motion if the motion of the at least one object is consistent with most other objects”
JANSSON discloses determines, based on the spatial information and the image, a motion of at least one object relative to other objects by tracking the object and predicting motion of the object based on spatial information and the image (Fig. 1A-1B and Fig. 3 in view of para [0022, 0026, 0030-31, 0034, 0036, 0044-45, 0049-50]: camera). JANSSON is silent to distinguishing if the motion of the object is a local motion or global motion per bolded underlined limitation above AND JANSSON is silent to applying a “method for Electric Image Stabilization (EIS) cropping”.
However, the bolded feature of said underlined limitation was known in the related art for a digital camera. For example, prior art YOO (see para [0091, 0103, 0251, 0262] and first stabilization and second stabilization methods to produce a digital zoom stabilized image in Fig. 21-22: motion estimation unit 2120/2210, para [0251] states motion estimation unit 2120 may acquire a motion vector (e.g., a global motion vector and a local motion vector) related to the background or the subject by comparing an enlarged image of a previous frame and an enlarged image of a current frame; para [0262] states motion estimation unit 2210 may acquire a motion vector (e.g., a global motion vector and a local motion vector) related to translation of the background or the subject by comparing a previous original frame and the current original frame).
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of YOO into suitable modification with the teachings of JANSSON to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a high quality image without motion artifacts in the analogous art of a digital camera comprising motion prediction.
Regarding the limitation (emphasis in bold): “filtering the global motion for EIS cropping”, this feature is considered obvious since it was known in the prior art to apply a filter to extract global motion and local motion characteristics. For example, see prior art WU (see Abstract, applies a filter per Fig. 1: S540 (page 10) & Fig. 2: step S120 (pages 12-13) and page 2 discloses extracting whole “global” and local object characteristics from 3D point cloud of a laser RADAR in the field of target detection and tracking).
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of WU (filter for global motion) into suitable modification with the teachings of JANSSON in view of YOO (EIS cropping using local/global motion vectors) to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a high quality image without motion artifacts in the analogous art of a digital camera comprising motion prediction.
As per CLAIM 4, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: executing the EIS cropping which reduces an image size to maintain visual stability based on the spatial information and the image (This feature is obvious over the prior art combination discussed above in further view of YOO’s Fig. 21-22 in view of para [0091, 0103, 0251, 0262]).
As per CLAIM 5, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising: detecting a large plane is moving up and down in a short period with a particular jittering pattern based on the spatial information of a target; determining that the moving of the large plane is unlikely possible; determining that the large plane is the global motion; and filtering the global motion (This feature is obvious over the prior art combination discussed above – JANSSON’s Fig. 2 & 3: processor 200/212 method for camera control 230 for predicting object trajectory in further view of YOO’s Fig. 21-22 in view of para [0091, 0103, 0251, 0262] in further view of WU’s applied filter per Fig. 1: S540 (page 10) & Fig. 2: step S120 (pages 12-13) and page 2 discloses extracting whole “global” and local object characteristics from 3D point cloud of a laser RADAR in the field of target detection and tracking).
As per INDEPENDENT CLAIM 6, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches an electronic device for Electric Image Stabilization (EIS) cropping, comprising: a radio-wave sensor, configured to provide spatial information including position and velocity of at least one point; a camera, configured to provide an image; a processor, configured to execute the following steps: receiving spatial information output by the radio-wave sensor; receiving the image captured by the camera; determining, based on the spatial information and the image, that a motion of at least one object is local motion if the motion of the at least one object is inconsistent with most other objects; determining, based on the spatial information and the image, that a motion of the at least one object is a global motion if the motion of the at least one object is consistent with most other objects; and filtering the global motion for EIS cropping (Claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in claim 1 over the same citations discussed by the prior art combination of JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU).
As per CLAIM 9, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the processor executes the EIS cropping which reduces an image size to maintain visual stability based on the spatial information and the image (This feature is obvious over the prior art combination discussed above – JANSSON’s Fig. 2 & 3: processor 200/212 method for camera control 230 for predicting object trajectory in further view of YOO’s Fig. 21-22 in view of para [0091, 0103, 0251, 0262]).
As per CLAIM 10, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 6, wherein the processor detects a large plane is moving up and down in a short period with a particular jittering pattern based on the spatial information of a target, determines that the moving of the large plane is unlikely possible, determines that the large plane is the global motion, and filters the global motion (This feature is obvious over the prior art combination discussed above – JANSSON’s Fig. 2 & 3: processor 200/212 method for camera control 230 for predicting object trajectory in further view of YOO’s Fig. 21-22 in view of para [0091, 0103, 0251, 0262] in further view of WU’s applied filter per Fig. 1: S540 (page 10) & Fig. 2: step S120 (pages 12-13) and page 2 discloses extracting whole “global” and local object characteristics from 3D point cloud of a laser RADAR in the field of target detection and tracking).
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANSSON (US 20230199295, having provisional application US 63/292,379, dated 12/21/2021) in view of YOO (US 20170034410) in view of WU SONG-YUAN (CN-111626217-A) in view of LIANIDES (US 20220105389) -- hereafter, termed as shown “underlined”.
As per CLAIM 2, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 but remains silent to “wherein the spatial information further comprises a frame-level confidence indicator”.
However, this feature is considered obvious over the additional teachings of prior art LIANIDES (para [0005, 0032, 0038]) discloses an imaging and analyzing motion wherein the spatial information further comprises a frame-level confidence indicator by frames being analyzed to generate confidence data.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of LIANIDES into suitable modification with the teachings of JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a high quality image without motion artifacts in the analogous art of a digital camera comprising motion prediction.
As per CLAIM 7, JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU teaches the electronic device as claimed in claim 6 but remains silent to “wherein the spatial information further comprises a frame-level confidence indicator”.
However, this feature is considered obvious over the additional teachings of prior art LIANIDES (para [0005, 0032, 0038]) discloses an imaging and analyzing motion wherein the spatial information further comprises a frame-level confidence indicator by frames being analyzed to generate confidence data.
Thus, when considering the collective knowledge bestowed by each applied prior art, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to COMBINE the teachings of LIANIDES into suitable modification with the teachings of JANSSON in view of YOO in view of WU to produce Applicant’s claimed invention with the structural arrangement / functional configuration stated in said underlined limitation for the MOTIVATED REASON of producing a high quality image without motion artifacts in the analogous art of a digital camera comprising motion prediction.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 8 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the EXAMINER should be directed to AKSHAY TREHAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-5252. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 10am – 6pm during the weekdays Monday – Friday.
Interviews with the examiner are available via telephone AND video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant may contact the examiner via telephone OR use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR), which can be found at: http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached on (571) 272-7406. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AKSHAY TREHAN/
Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights