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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/06/2026 and 08/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As claimed in claim 1, it is not clear as to what claimed “extract a feature point of each image of the plurality of images”. The Examiner does not know which feature point of each image or a plurality of images is extracted. It is unclear what subject matter the applicant is claiming and therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
For the purpose of the art rejection, the Examiner interprets that the feature points of plurality of images are extracted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubusaki (US 2016/0191812) in view of Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”, US 2018/0040133).
Regarding claim 1, Tsubusaki discloses an electronic apparatus comprising:
a camera (Tsubusaki: a camera 100, see fig. 1 and par. [0038]);
a memory configured to store a first parameter of the camera (Tsubusaki: see par. [0065], wherein a memory 118 configured to store a first parameter of the camera as zoom magnification); and
a processor (114) electrically connected to the camera and the memory and configured to:
obtain a plurality of images through the camera based on a value of the first parameter (Tsubusaki: see pars. [0002], [0045], obtain a plurality of image data through the camera based on a value of zoom magnification);
identify a scene type corresponding to each image of the plurality of images (Tsubusaki: see fig. 6B-6D and par. [0074], in which identify a scene type as face, upper body, whole body corresponding to each image of the plurality of images);
Tsubusaki does not explicitly disclose extracting a feature point of each image of the plurality of images based on the scene type; and obtaining a second parameter by updating the first parameter based on the feature point.
However, Srinivasan teaches extracting a feature point of each image of the plurality of images based on the scene type; and obtaining a second parameter by updating the first parameter based on the feature point (Srinivasan: see pars. [0076], [0087], wherein a feature point of each image of the plurality of image based on the scene type is extracted and obtaining a second parameter as performing automatic zoom by updated previous zoom value based on the feature point).
One would have been modified to include the feature as taught by Srinivasan in the apparatus of Tsubusaki to perform auto focus more accurate.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Srinivasan with the Tsubusaki’s system to include extracting a feature point of each image of the plurality of images based on the scene type; and obtaining a second parameter by updating the first parameter based on the feature point.
Regarding claim 2, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first parameter of the camera is a value corresponding to a focal length (Tsubusaki: see the abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify at least one object in each image; and identify the scene type corresponding to each image based on the at least one object (Tsubusaki: see the abstract and par. [0074], wherein the processor is configured to identify an object in each image and identify the scene type as face, upper body, whole body to each image based on the object).
Regarding claims 11-13, claims 11-13 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 1-3, respectively. Claims 11-13 are similar scope to claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubusaki (US 2016/0191812) in view of Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”, US 2018/0040133) and further in view of Xu (US 2020/0372663).
Regarding claim 4, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 3.
Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan does not explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to an external space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to an interior space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type.
However, Xu teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to an external space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to an interior space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type (Xu: see par. [0037], wherein based on one object such as a part, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type, and based on one object such as an office building, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type).
One would have been modified to include the feature as taught by Xu in the apparatus of Tsubusaki and Srinivasan to assist the system to identify the type of the scene faster.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Xu with the Tsubusaki and Srinivasan’s system to include that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to an external space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to an interior space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type.
Regarding claim 5, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan and Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Xu further teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined outdoor object, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined indoor object, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the indoor scene type (Xu: see par. [0037], wherein based on one object such as a part, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type, and based on one object such as an office building, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan and Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Xu further teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined outdoor brightness level, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined indoor brightness level, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the indoor scene type (Xu: see par. [0037]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan and Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Xu further teaches the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to a certain regular pattern, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as a regular pattern scene type (Xu: see par. [0037], wherein considering the pattern is the shape of the street, the shape of the park and the shape of the office).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claims 14-17, claims 14-17 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 4-7, respectively. Claims 14-17 are similar scope to claims 4-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsubusaki (US 2016/0191812) in view of Srinivasan et al. (“Srinivasan”, US 2018/0040133), Xu (US 2020/0372663) and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2014/0347513).
Regarding claim 8, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan and Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 7.
Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan and Xu does not explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type or the indoor scene type, extract the feature point based on the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular pattern scene type, randomly extract the feature point of each image.
On the other hand, Kobayashi teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type or the indoor scene type, extract the feature point based on the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular pattern scene type, randomly extract the feature point of each image (Kobayashi: see par. [0080], wherein if the user setting information indicates scene mode link, the setting unit 601 sets priority regions based on the scene type, and sets the number of feature points to be detected as a feature point detection parameter as in the first embodiment).
One would have been modified to include the feature as taught by Kobayashi in the apparatus of Tsubusaki, Srinivasan and Xu to assist the system to accelerate the speed of the operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kobayashi with the Tsubusaki, Srinivasan and Xu’s system to include that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type or the indoor scene type, extract the feature point based on the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular pattern scene type, randomly extract the feature point of each image.
Regarding claim 9, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan, Xu and Kobayashi discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Xu further teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type, extract the feature point of each image by identifying a morphological feature of the at least one object as a unique feature of the at least one object; based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the indoor scene type, extract the feature point of each image by identifying a boundary of the at least one object as a unique feature of the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular (Xu: see par. [0037]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Tsubusaki in the combination with Srinivasan, Xu and Kobayashi discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Srinivasan further teaches that the processor is configured to: identify distortion information of the feature point of each image; and obtain the second parameter by updating distortion coefficient included in the first parameter based on the distortion information, wherein the distortion coefficient indicates a degree of distortion that occurs due to radial distortion or tangential distortion (Srinivasa: see pars. [0076], [0087]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 1.
Regarding claims 18-20, claims 18-20 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 8-10, respectively. Claims 18-20 are similar scope to claims 8-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
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 1-3 and 11-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12407912.
Instant Application 19/301,289
U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912
1.An electronic apparatus comprising:
a camera;
a memory configured to store a first parameter of the camera; and
a processor electrically connected to the camera and the memory and configured to:
obtain a plurality of images through the camera based on a value of the first parameter;
identify a scene type corresponding to each image of the plurality of images;
extract a feature point of each image of the plurality of images based on the scene type; and
obtain a second parameter by updating the first parameter based on the feature point.
1.An electronic apparatus comprising:
a camera;
a memory in which a plurality of images captured through the camera and a parameter value of the camera are stored; and a processor electrically connected to the camera and the memory and configured to:
identify, among a plurality of preset scene types, a scene type corresponding to each captured image of the plurality of captured images;
extract a feature point of each captured image of the plurality of captured images by applying one of different feature point extraction methods, which are respectively preset in association with the plurality of preset scene types, according to the identified scene type of each captured image, wherein feature points extracted by the different feature point extraction methods have different feature types;
obtain a calibration parameter value based on distortion information corresponding to a feature type, among the different feature types, of each extracted feature point;
obtain an integrated calibration parameter value based on the obtained calibration parameter value corresponding to the feature type; and
update the parameter value stored in the memory based on the integrated calibration parameter value.
2. The electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first parameter of the camera is a value corresponding to at least one parameter among a focal length, a principal point, a skew coefficient, a distortion coefficient, a rotation information, or a translation information.
7. The electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the parameter value of the camera is a value corresponding to at least one parameter among a focal length, a principal point, a skew coefficient, a distortion coefficient, a rotation information, or a translation information.
3. The electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: identify at least one object in each image; and identify the scene type corresponding to each image based on the at least one object.
5. The electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to: based on a scene type of a captured image being a first preset scene type or a second preset scene type, extract a feature point based on an object identified in the captured image; and based on a scene type of the captured image being a third preset scene type, randomly extract a feature point in the captured image.
Regarding claims 11-13, claims 11-13 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 1-3, respectively. Claims 11-13 are similar scope to claims 1-3, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 4-7 and 14-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in view of Xu (US 2020/0372663).
Regarding claim 4, U.S. Patent No. 12,704,912 discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 3.
U.S. Patent No. 12,704,912 does not explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to an external space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to an interior space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type.
However, Xu teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to an external space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to an interior space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type (Xu: see par. [0037], wherein based on one object such as a part, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type, and based on one object such as an office building, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type).
One would have been modified to include the feature as taught by Xu in the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,704,912 to assist the system to identify the type of the scene faster.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Xu with the U.S. Patent No. 12,704,912’s system to include that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to an external space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to an interior space, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type.
Regarding claim 5, U.S. Patent No. 12,704,912 in the combination with Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Xu further teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined outdoor object, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined indoor object, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the indoor scene type (Xu: see par. [0037], wherein based on one object such as a part, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an outdoor scene type, and based on one object such as an office building, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as an indoor scene type).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in the combination with Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Xu further teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined outdoor brightness level, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the outdoor scene type; and based on the at least one object corresponding to a pre-determined indoor brightness level, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as the indoor scene type (Xu: see par. [0037]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claim 7, U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in the combination with Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 4.
Xu further teaches the processor is further configured to: based on the at least one object corresponding to a certain regular pattern, identify the scene type corresponding to each image as a regular pattern scene type (Xu: see par. [0037], wherein considering the pattern is the shape of the street, the shape of the park and the shape of the office).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 4.
Regarding claims 14-17, claims 14-17 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 4-7, respectively. Claims 14-17 are similar scope to claims 4-7, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in view of Xu (US 2020/0372663) and further in view of Kobayashi (US 2014/0347513).
Regarding claim 8, U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in the combination with Xu discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 7.
U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in the combination with Xu does not explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type or the indoor scene type, extract the feature point based on the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular pattern scene type, randomly extract the feature point of each image.
On the other hand, Kobayashi teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type or the indoor scene type, extract the feature point based on the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular pattern scene type, randomly extract the feature point of each image (Kobayashi: see par. [0080], wherein if the user setting information indicates scene mode link, the setting unit 601 sets priority regions based on the scene type, and sets the number of feature points to be detected as a feature point detection parameter as in the first embodiment).
One would have been modified to include the feature as taught by Kobayashi in the apparatus of U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 and Xu to assist the system to accelerate the speed of the operation.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Kobayashi with the U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 and Xu’s system to include that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type or the indoor scene type, extract the feature point based on the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular pattern scene type, randomly extract the feature point of each image.
Regarding claim 9, U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in the combination with Xu and Kobayashi discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Xu further teaches that the processor is further configured to: based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the outdoor scene type, extract the feature point of each image by identifying a morphological feature of the at least one object as a unique feature of the at least one object; based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the indoor scene type, extract the feature point of each image by identifying a boundary of the at least one object as a unique feature of the at least one object; and based on the scene type corresponding to each image being the regular (Xu: see par. [0037]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, U.S. Patent No. 12,407,912 in the combination with Xu and Kobayashi discloses the electronic apparatus as claimed in claim 8.
Srinivasan further teaches that the processor is configured to: identify distortion information of the feature point of each image; and obtain the second parameter by updating distortion coefficient included in the first parameter based on the distortion information, wherein the distortion coefficient indicates a degree of distortion that occurs due to radial distortion or tangential distortion (Srinivasa: see pars. [0076], [0087]).
The motivation is to obtain good image data.
Regarding claims 18-20, claims 18-20 are directed to a method corresponding to the apparatus claimed in claims 8-10, respectively. Claims 18-20 are similar scope to claims 8-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN T H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/CHAN T NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights