DETAILED ACTION
[1] Remarks
I. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
II. The amendment filed on 10/15/2025 is entered and made of record.
III. Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 15-19 are pending and have been examined, where claims 1-5, 8-10, and 15-19 is/are rejected. Explanations will be provided below.
IV. Inventor and/or assignee search were performed and determined no double patenting rejection(s) is/are necessary.
V. Patent eligibility (updated in 2019) shown by the following: Claims 1-5, 8-10, and 15-19 pass patent eligibility test because there is/are no limitation or a combination of limitations amounting to an abstract idea. Also, the following limitation or the combinations of the limitations: “perform an image processing operation based on the specified target pixel area, wherein the image processing operation includes synthesis of an image of the target pixel area onto a superimposition position frame of a background of a third image of the plurality of images” effects a transformation or a reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing / adds a specific limitation(s) other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application and providing improvements to the technical field of image synthesis, which recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounting significant more.
VI. The PCT application, PCT/JP2021/046765, is considered and the examiner determined no reference prior art are relevant to the claims of the current application.
[2] Response to Arguments
The arguments presented by the applicant have been considered and are found convincing.
An updated search was performed and determined all claims to be allowable. Details are shown below.
[3] Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, and 15-17 are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph because of the following reason(s): limitations are modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
Claim(s) 18-19 does not require 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph interpretation because they are method claims and / or they are CRM claims.
Upon examination of the specification and claims, the examiner has determined, under the best understanding of the scope of the claim(s), rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)/(b) is not necessitated because of the following reasons: sufficient support are provided in the written description / drawings of the invention.
[4] Grounds of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) person shall be entitled to a patent unless—
(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; or
(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.
or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
Claims 1-3, 8, and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by USUKI (US 20210081700).
Regarding claim 1, USUKI discloses an image processing device, comprising:
an image processing unit configured to:
determine a target subject in a first image of a plurality of images (see figure 25, 50 and 56 are the plurality of images, 52 is the target subject in a first image);
specify, in a second image of the plurality of images target pixel area including the determined target subject (figure 25, 52 is specified and is read as second image);
perform an image processing operation based on the specified target pixel area, wherein the image processing operation includes synthesis of an image of the target pixel area onto a superimposition position frame of a background of a third image of the plurality of images (see figure 25, 56 is read as the third image, the characters in 52 is combined with 56 to generate a composite image):
PNG
media_image1.png
962
1199
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 2, USUKI discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing unit is further configured to: determine the target subject on the second image based on an image analysis (see figure 25, 32A the extraction unit is read as the image analysis unit).
Regarding claim 3, USUKI discloses the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the image analysis is object recognition (see paragraph 72, the live view image of the live view display is visually recognized as a motion picture).
Regarding claim 8, USUKI discloses the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the second image includes a set of images, of the plurality of images, inputted subsequent to the first image (see paragraph 92, the captured image is recorded in the work memory 17 as a live view image and is sequentially updated at the frame rate, where the display control unit 31 implements the live view display by reading out the live view image sequentially updated in the work memory 17 and sequentially updating the display of the touch panel display 12).
Regarding claim 15, USUKI discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing unit is further configured to: determine one of a change of the target subject or a change of a scene by image analysis and change contents of the image processing operation according to the determination of the change (see paragraph 185, is an editing instruction provided by operating the color change button 94. In the case of the editing instruction provided by operating the color change button 94, step S228 results in a positive determination, and a transition is made to step S230, the color change is the change in scene).
Regarding claim 16, USUKI discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a display control unit configured to control display of a composite image that is subjected to the image processing operation along with an overall image including the target pixel area to be subjected to the image processing operation (see figure 11, the composite image is displayed on the phone, the subjected image processing operation is adding).
Regarding 17, USUKI discloses the image processing device according to claim 16, wherein the overall image indicates the target pixel area to be subjected to the image processing operation (see figure 11, the target area is added onto the image with the panda, the adding operation is read as image processing operation).
Regarding claims 18 and 19 see the rationale and rejection for claim 1. In addition, see paragraph 279 of USUKI – processors can be used as the hardware structure of processing units such as the main control unit, the extraction unit, the compositing unit.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. 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.
3. Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USUKI (US 20210081700) in view of Tu (US 20060120571).
Regarding claim 4, USUKI discloses all the limitations of claim 2, but is silent in disclosing the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the image analysis is personal identification. Tu discloses the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the image analysis is personal identification (see figure 4, 66 performs identification on the imaged individual).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include personal identification image analysis to enhance security, improve accuracy in biometric authentication, and to enable automated identification in both clinical and forensic contexts. It also serves as a secure, password-free alternative to traditional IDs, protecting against identity theft.
Regarding claim 5, Tu discloses the image processing device according to claim 2, wherein the image analysis is posture estimation (see figure 4, 54, 56 and 64, transform the registered image to a registered image to a desired location and a desired pose). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include image analysis is posture estimation in order to allow for the markerless, non-invasive extraction of unique silhouette and movement features from video or photo data. It also prevents exposing sensitive facial features, making it ideal for surveillance in sensitive areas.
3. Claims 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USUKI (US 20210081700) in view of Panley (US 20140132629).
Regarding claim 9, USUKI discloses all the limitations of claim 2, but is silent in disclosing the image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a setting unit configured to set the target subject on the first image based on specification input on the first image. Panley discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a setting unit configured to set the target subject on the first image based on specification input on the first image (see paragraph 38, user may want to provide rankings of virtual objects and/or person, activate/deactivate superimposition of faces, and/or interact with virtual objects … while a bracelet is one form of user interface, it should be understood that various other user interfaces may be used for a user to provide input, such as a voice-recognition module or eye-tracking module which may be incorporated with motion/focus tracking module).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include to establish a precise tracking, recognition, and image manipulation tasks, where by defining the subject in the system establishes a true label that allows subsequent AI processes to distinguish the target from other background objects.
Regarding claim 10, Panley discloses the image processing device according to claim 9, wherein the specification input is allowed to be a voice specification input (see paragraph 38, user may want to provide rankings of virtual objects and/or person, activate/deactivate
superimposition of faces, and/or interact with virtual objects … while a bracelet is one form of user interface, it should be understood that various other user interfaces may be used for a user to provide input, such as a voice-recognition module). In addition,
using voice, users can specify, select, or modify subjects within an image without manual, precision, repetitive mouse-driven, and touch-screen interactions.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX LIEW (duty station is located in New York City) whose telephone number is (571)272-8623 (FAX 571-273-8623), cell (917)763-1192 or email alexa.liew@uspto.gov. Please note the examiner cannot reply through email unless an internet communication authorization is provided by the applicant. The examiner can be reached anytime.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, MISTRY ONEAL R, can be reached on (313)446-4912. 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.
/ALEX KOK S LIEW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674 Telephone: 571-272-8623
Date: 1/22/26