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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/05/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 USC 101 rejection, Each of the steps recited in claim 6, 12, 15 and 16 are mental steps that can be performed by a human. For example, a human can decide for a photograph that it is very high resolution, or very low resolution, noisy, very compressed, out-of-focus… Then that same human can decide which processing to perform on the image (upscaling, sharpening, denoising, color balancing…) as well as constraints (apply only to subject or entire image, to dark areas or highlights), and whether they are going to use a very precise algorithm for each adjustment (so taking long in processing it) or the image is good enough (or unimportant enough) to do a very rushed adjustment. All of these are human decisions that can be done by a photographer in deciding how to process an image with a computer, before and outside any action by the computer, the invention merely reciting generic circuitry performing the method. The rejection is maintained.
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection, Applicant has amended the claims to include objected claims 6 and 12. Upon further search and consideration, these claims are now rejected in view of Alakuijala 20130114893.
Regarding claims 6, 7, 12, 15 and 16, Alakuijala 20130114893 teaches Minimum cost compressor 836, at each pixel of the input image, selects between: a) one or more options of inserting backward references; b) inserting the current pixel; and c) inserting an index to a palette entry. The selection is based upon a cost analysis. – paragraph 0111 Note: the type of process to be performed on the pixel in an image is based on cost analysis. This teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus. Claims 6, 7, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 6, 12, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites deducing a state in a photographed image; and selecting as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image.
These limitations of deducing a state presented in a photographed image; and selecting as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image, an analysis method from among a plurality of analysis methods, based on a deduced state which is the state deduced, required accuracy which is analysis accuracy required for analysis of the photographed image, and a constraint condition for analyzing the photographed image , under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For example, Each of the steps recited in claim 6, 12, 15 and 16 are mental steps that can be performed by a human. For example, a human can decide for a photograph that it is very high resolution, or very low resolution, noisy, very compressed, out-of-focus… Then that same human can decide which processing to perform on the image (upscaling, sharpening, denoising, color balancing…) as well as constraints (apply only to subject or entire image, to dark areas or highlights), and whether they are going to use a very precise algorithm for each adjustment (so taking long in processing it) or the image is good enough (or unimportant enough) to do a very rushed adjustment. All of these are human decisions that can be done by a photographer in deciding how to process an image with a computer, before and outside any action by the computer, the invention merely reciting generic circuitry performing the method.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applicant. In particular, the claim only recites, “deducing a state presented in a photographed image; and selecting as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image” because the deducing a state presented in a photographed image; and selecting as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image.
The addition of wherein the processing circuitry notifies an outside apparatus of the selected analysis method and controls the outside apparatus to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites mental process.
These limitations of wherein the processing circuitry designates the two or more analysis items based on the deduced state, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), thus reciting an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical applicant. In particular, the claim only recites, a mental process. The addition of this limitation does not add a meaningful limitation to the method of image analysis. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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) 6, 7, 12, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et al US 2017/0109612 in view of Komiya et al US 2019/0180447 further in view of Alakuijala 20130114893.
Regarding claim 6, Mittal et al teaches an information processing apparatus (system 100 (paragraph 0030) comprising:
processing circuitry to deduce a state presented in a photographed image (classification platform 109 may process and/or facilitate a processing of image data associated with at least one image to cause, at least in part, an extraction of one or more fogging attributes from the image data. the classification platform 109 may process the image data to determine fogging attributes associated with the region of interest. the classification platform 109 may detect fogging afflicted due to lens moisture or external particle suspension in the atmosphere (paragraph 0056) Note: the deduced state in the image is the amount of fog in the image; and
to select as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image, (Section 0069, lines 5-6 select a fogging level where each level represents a method) an analysis method from among a plurality of analysis methods, based on a deduced state which is the state deduced, (Section 0069, lines 11-13 Obscure state or in a normal state) required accuracy which is analysis accuracy required for analysis of the photographed image, and a constraint condition for analyzing the photographed image (quality experts may select a fogging level and/or score (analysis method) for the one or more images based, at least in part, on the determined fogging attributes (constraint), the size and area of bounding boxes in the one or more images, or a combination thereof. Such fogging level and/or score may be associated with the opacity level in the one or more captured images. Then, the one or more images may be categorized as being either in an obscure state or in a normal state (accuracy) (paragraph 0069)
wherein the processing circuitry notifies an outside apparatus and controls the outside apparatus (Computer system 800 also includes one or more instances of a communications interface 870 coupled to bus 810. Communication interface 870 provides a one-way or two-way communication coupling (notify) to a variety of external devices that operate with their own processors, such as printers, etc. the communications interface 870 enables connection (control) to the communication network 107 for automated classification of an image based on the fogging attributes associated with the image to the UE 101 (paragraph 0078)
Mittrel et al fails to teach of the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method;
the processing circuitry designates two or more analysis items regarding the photographed image;
acquires the required accuracy for each of the two or more analysis items;
selects the analysis method for each of the two or more analysis items;
Komiya et al teaches the selected analysis method (the image processing device 100 estimates the congestion status in the video images and switches the method for video image analysis depending on the estimated congestion status (paragraph 0041 and abstract) and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method (when the congestion degree is low, the image processing device 100 performs video image analysis by a simple method, and when the congestion degree is high, the image processing device 100 performs high-accuracy video image analysis such as analysis in a plurality of frames (paragraph 0041 and abstract)
the processing circuitry designates two or more analysis items regarding the photographed image (a monitoring video image in which crowds are seen (paragraph 0028 and fig 3(a))) Note: the video image is of a crowd of people, therefore the people in the image are designated to be analyzed,
acquires the required accuracy for each of the two or more analysis items (the congestion degree calculation unit 204 performs predetermined image processing on the monitoring video image in which the crowds are seen to generate a heat map image that expresses crowd congestion levels. the crowd levels are indicated in the descending order of blue<green<yellow<red. That is, a crowd level at a low density is indicated in “blue” on the heat map. A high crowd level at a high density is indicated in “red” on the heat map (paragraph 0028) Note: the colors of the heat map accurately describe the crowd based on the color, and
selects the analysis method for each of the two or more analysis items (image processing device 100 estimates the congestion status in the video images and switches (selects) the method for video image analysis depending on the estimated congestion status (paragraph 0041) Note: the congestion status is of the crowds that are detected in the image, which have different congestion levels, therefore using a different analysis method based on the congestion level
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al with the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method, the processing circuitry designates two or more analysis items regarding the photographed image; acquires the required accuracy for each of the two or more analysis items; selects the analysis method for each of the two or more analysis items;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Mittal et al in view of Komiya et al fails to teach the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus
Alakuijala teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus (Minimum cost compressor 836, at each pixel of the input image, selects between: a) one or more options of inserting backward references; b) inserting the current pixel; and c) inserting an index to a palette entry. The selection is based upon a cost analysis. (paragraph 0111) Note: the type of process to be performed on the pixel in an image is based on cost analysis. This teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al in view of Komiya et al with the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Regarding claim 7, Mittal et al in view of Komiya et al further in view of Alakuijala teaches wherein the processing circuitry designates the two or more analysis items based on the deduced state (Komiya et al: a monitoring video image in which crowds are seen (paragraph 0028 and fig 3(a))) Note: the video image is of a crowd of people, therefore the people (two or more) in the image are designated to be analyzed
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al in view of Komiya et al further in view of Alakuijala with the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Regarding claim 12, Mittal et al teaches an information processing apparatus (system 100 (paragraph 0030) comprising:
processing circuitry to deduce a state presented in a photographed image (classification platform 109 may process and/or facilitate a processing of image data associated with at least one image to cause, at least in part, an extraction of one or more fogging attributes from the image data. the classification platform 109 may process the image data to determine fogging attributes associated with the region of interest. the classification platform 109 may detect fogging afflicted due to lens moisture or external particle suspension in the atmosphere (paragraph 0056) Note: the deduced state in the image is the amount of fog in the image; and
to select as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image, (Section 0069, lines 5-6 select a fogging level where each level represents a method) an analysis method from among a plurality of analysis methods, based on a deduced state which is the state deduced, (Section 0069, lines 11-13 Obscure state or in a normal state) required accuracy which is analysis accuracy required for analysis of the photographed image, and a constraint condition for analyzing the photographed image (quality experts may select a fogging level and/or score (analysis method) for the one or more images based, at least in part, on the determined fogging attributes (constraint), the size and area of bounding boxes in the one or more images, or a combination thereof. Such fogging level and/or score may be associated with the opacity level in the one or more captured images. Then, the one or more images may be categorized as being either in an obscure state or in a normal state (accuracy) (paragraph 0069)
wherein the processing circuitry notifies an outside apparatus and controls the outside apparatus (Computer system 800 also includes one or more instances of a communications interface 870 coupled to bus 810. Communication interface 870 provides a one-way or two-way communication coupling (notify) to a variety of external devices that operate with their own processors, such as printers, etc. the communications interface 870 enables connection (control) to the communication network 107 for automated classification of an image based on the fogging attributes associated with the image to the UE 101 (paragraph 0078)
Mittrel et al fails to teach of the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method;
Komiya et al teaches the selected analysis method (the image processing device 100 estimates the congestion status in the video images and switches the method for video image analysis depending on the estimated congestion status (paragraph 0041 and abstract) and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method (when the congestion degree is low, the image processing device 100 performs video image analysis by a simple method, and when the congestion degree is high, the image processing device 100 performs high-accuracy video image analysis such as analysis in a plurality of frames (paragraph 0041 and abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al with the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method,
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Mittal et al in view of Kamiya et al fails to teach the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus
Alakuijala teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus (Minimum cost compressor 836, at each pixel of the input image, selects between: a) one or more options of inserting backward references; b) inserting the current pixel; and c) inserting an index to a palette entry. The selection is based upon a cost analysis. (paragraph 0111) Note: the type of process to be performed on the pixel in an image is based on cost analysis. This teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al in view of Kamiya et al with the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Regarding claim 15, Mittal et al teaches an information processing method (system 100 (paragraph 0030) comprising:
deducing a state presented in a photographed image (classification platform 109 may process and/or facilitate a processing of image data associated with at least one image to cause, at least in part, an extraction of one or more fogging attributes from the image data. the classification platform 109 may process the image data to determine fogging attributes associated with the region of interest. the classification platform 109 may detect fogging afflicted due to lens moisture or external particle suspension in the atmosphere (paragraph 0056) Note: the deduced state in the image is the amount of fog in the image; and
selecting as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image, (Section 0069, lines 5-6 select a fogging level where each level represents a method) an analysis method from among a plurality of analysis methods, based on a deduced state which is the state deduced, (Section 0069, lines 11-13 Obscure state or in a normal state) required accuracy which is analysis accuracy required for analysis of the photographed image, and a constraint condition for analyzing the photographed image (quality experts may select a fogging level and/or score (analysis method) for the one or more images based, at least in part, on the determined fogging attributes (constraint), the size and area of bounding boxes in the one or more images, or a combination thereof. Such fogging level and/or score may be associated with the opacity level in the one or more captured images. Then, the one or more images may be categorized as being either in an obscure state or in a normal state (accuracy) (paragraph 0069)
notifying an outside apparatus and controlling the outside apparatus (Computer system 800 also includes one or more instances of a communications interface 870 coupled to bus 810. Communication interface 870 provides a one-way or two-way communication coupling (notify) to a variety of external devices that operate with their own processors, such as printers, etc. the communications interface 870 enables connection (control) to the communication network 107 for automated classification of an image based on the fogging attributes associated with the image to the UE 101 (paragraph 0078)
Mittrel et al fails to teach of the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method;
Komiya et al teaches the selected analysis method (the image processing device 100 estimates the congestion status in the video images and switches the method for video image analysis depending on the estimated congestion status (paragraph 0041 and abstract) and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method (when the congestion degree is low, the image processing device 100 performs video image analysis by a simple method, and when the congestion degree is high, the image processing device 100 performs high-accuracy video image analysis such as analysis in a plurality of frames (paragraph 0041 and abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al with the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method,
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Mittal et al in view of Kamiya et al fails to teach the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus
Alakuijala teaches the information processing method further comprises selecting an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus (Minimum cost compressor 836, at each pixel of the input image, selects between: a) one or more options of inserting backward references; b) inserting the current pixel; and c) inserting an index to a palette entry. The selection is based upon a cost analysis. (paragraph 0111) Note: the type of process to be performed on the pixel in an image is based on cost analysis. This teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al in view of Kamiya et al with the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Regarding claim 16, Mittal et al teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program which causes a computer to execute (paragraph 0079):
a state deduction process of deducing a state presented in a photographed image (classification platform 109 may process and/or facilitate a processing of image data associated with at least one image to cause, at least in part, an extraction of one or more fogging attributes from the image data. the classification platform 109 may process the image data to determine fogging attributes associated with the region of interest. the classification platform 109 may detect fogging afflicted due to lens moisture or external particle suspension in the atmosphere (paragraph 0056) Note: the deduced state in the image is the amount of fog in the image; and
an analysis method selection process of selecting as an analysis method for analyzing the photographed image, (Section 0069, lines 5-6 select a fogging level where each level represents a method) an analysis method from among a plurality of analysis methods, based on a deduced state which is the state deduced, (Section 0069, lines 11-13 Obscure state or in a normal state) required accuracy which is analysis accuracy required for analysis of the photographed image, and a constraint condition for analyzing the photographed image (quality experts may select a fogging level and/or score (analysis method) for the one or more images based, at least in part, on the determined fogging attributes (constraint), the size and area of bounding boxes in the one or more images, or a combination thereof. Such fogging level and/or score may be associated with the opacity level in the one or more captured images. Then, the one or more images may be categorized as being either in an obscure state or in a normal state (accuracy) (paragraph 0069)
a notification process of notifying an outside apparatus and an execution process of controlling the outside apparatus (Computer system 800 also includes one or more instances of a communications interface 870 coupled to bus 810. Communication interface 870 provides a one-way or two-way communication coupling (notify) to a variety of external devices that operate with their own processors, such as printers, etc. the communications interface 870 enables connection (control) to the communication network 107 for automated classification of an image based on the fogging attributes associated with the image to the UE 101 (paragraph 0078)
Mittrel et al fails to teach of the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method;
Komiya et al teaches the selected analysis method (the image processing device 100 estimates the congestion status in the video images and switches the method for video image analysis depending on the estimated congestion status (paragraph 0041 and abstract) and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method (when the congestion degree is low, the image processing device 100 performs video image analysis by a simple method, and when the congestion degree is high, the image processing device 100 performs high-accuracy video image analysis such as analysis in a plurality of frames (paragraph 0041 and abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al with the selected analysis method and to execute the analysis of the photographed image according to the selected analysis method,
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
Mittal et al in view of Kamiya et al fails to teach the analysis method selection process further comprises selecting an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus
Alakuijala teaches the analysis method selection process further comprises selecting an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus (Minimum cost compressor 836, at each pixel of the input image, selects between: a) one or more options of inserting backward references; b) inserting the current pixel; and c) inserting an index to a palette entry. The selection is based upon a cost analysis. (paragraph 0111) Note: the type of process to be performed on the pixel in an image is based on cost analysis. This teaches the processing circuitry selects an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art to have modified Mittal et al in view of Kamiya et al with the analysis method selection process further comprises selecting an analysis method from among the plurality of analysis methods, based on a constraint condition of a cost required for the analysis of the photographed image by the outside apparatus;
The reason of doing so would be to accurately analyze an image based on the desired analysis
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 should be directed to Michael Burleson whose telephone number is (571) 272-7460 and fax number is (571) 273-7460. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday from 8:00 a.m. – 4:30p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270- 3438.
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.
Michael Burleson
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2683
Michael Burleson
December 11, 2025
/MICHAEL BURLESON/
/AKWASI M SARPONG/SPE, Art Unit 2681 12/16/2025