DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 17-18, 22-25, and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Han et al. (US 2016/0191795; previously cited).
Regarding claim 17:
Han discloses:
Claim 17
Han
17. (Currently amended) An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
Fig. 1: CPU
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
Fig. 1: RAM and ROM
capture first visual data associated with a first image;
Shown in, e.g., Fig. 3(a)
capture second visual data associated with a second image;
Shown in, e.g., Fig. 3(b)
determine at least one aspect of the first visual data and the second visual data that overlap;
Paragraph 27: "similar or substantially the same features across a plurality of images"
combine the first visual data and the second visual data to produce a stitched image based on the at least one aspect;
Paragraph 27: "stitching"
determine a region [[of]] between the first visual data and the second visual data in which the first visual data and the second visual data [[that]] do not overlap;
Paragraph 29: "an object hidden in one frame but appearing in its neighbor frame from a neighbor camera"
identify, in the region, at least one of a first feature of the first visual data that is not present in the second visual data or a second feature of the second visual data that is not present in the first visual data in the region; and
Paragraph 29: "an object hidden in one frame but appearing in its neighbor frame from a neighbor camera"
generate proposed visual data for the region based on at least one of the first feature or the second feature.
As seen in Fig. 4, the object 301 appearing in (a) but not in (b) is shown in the combined image
Regarding claim 18:
Han discloses:
wherein the apparatus is further caused to update the stitched image to include the proposed visual data (as shown in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 22:
Han discloses:
wherein the region comprises an area adjacent to a blind spot area of the apparatus (as shown in Fig. 3, it is a blind spot for one of the cameras).
Regarding claim 23:
Han discloses:
wherein the apparatus comprises a 360-degree camera (the system of Fig. 6 is a 360-degree camera).
Regarding claims 24-25, and 29-31:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Cricri et al. (US 2018/0336702)
Regarding claim 19:
Han discloses an apparatus as discussed above.
Han does not disclose:
“wherein the apparatus is further caused to: capture spatial audio data from a sound source; and generate the proposed visual data based on the spatial audio data.”
Circri discloses:
wherein the apparatus is further caused to: capture spatial audio data from a sound source; and generate the proposed visual data based on the spatial audio data (paragraph 77; paragraph 782).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Han the elements taught by Cricri.
The rationale is as follows:
Han and Cricri are directed to the same field of art.
Cricri discloses that using audio signals can help map and/or detect objects. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 26:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Claim(s) 20-21 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Yadov (US 10,694,105)
Regarding claim 20:
Han discloses an apparatus as discussed above.
Han does not disclose:
“wherein the proposed visual data is generated by a machine learning model or a database repository.”
Yadov discloses:
wherein the proposed visual data is generated by a machine learning model or a database repository (Yadav: abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include in Han the elements taught by Yadov.
The rationale is as follows:
Han and Yadov are directed to the same field of art.
Yadov discloses a way to fill in blocked portions of an image, which is the situation that Han is directed to. This is a known improvement that one of ordinary skill in the art could have included with predictable results.
Regarding claim 21:
Han in view of Yadov discloses:
wherein the proposed visual data is generated based on previous imagery captured in the region (Yadav: abstract -- "pre-stored image data").
Regarding claims 27-28:
All elements positively recited have already been identified with respect to earlier rejections. No further elaboration is necessary.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 August 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued that Cao in view of Yadov did not disclose the new language of the claim. While the Examiner does not necessarily agree with every detail of applicant’s argument here, particularly with respect to Yadov, nonetheless this language was sufficient to overcome this rejection.
However, in light of the amendment, Han has now been relied upon. Han is actually directed to a slightly different problem than applicant. Applicant’s invention is directed to a blind spot in a 360 degree image that is caused by an object, etc., being too close to the cameras. Han is directed to the situation where there is another object that blocks part of the view of one of the cameras. Nonetheless Han meets the claim language as discussed above.
Note that Yadov is still relied upon for some dependent claims, but these elements were not part of applicant’s arguments against Yadov, which essentially were that Yadov is about filling in blocked portions of a single image. Han discloses filling in areas in multiple images, so Yadov is not relied upon for this.
Therefore applicant’s arguments are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 CHRISTOPHER RAY LAMB whose telephone number is (571)272-5264. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:00 PM.
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, Patrick Edouard can be reached at 571-272-7603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER R LAMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2622
