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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 12/18/2025.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1-20 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 1, 9, 10 and 17-18 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on 3/12/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The objection to the specification for having undescriptive title of the invention and the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f) are withdrawn because of the amendment and the persuasive argument in the remark (page 13).
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments in the remarks (pages 14-22) with respect to claim(s) 1, 9-10 and 17-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is suggested to amended as “wherein the processor of the information processing device is further configured to” for addressing a typographical error for missing the word “device” and also addressing the 112(a) issue below.
Claims 11-16 are also objected for being dependent of the base claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite broader limitation “circuitry” which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification has support for a CPU (Central Processing Unit). However, it is not the same as the broader structure “circuitry”. If the Applicant believes otherwise, the Applicant is welcome to point out where in the specification the support for the feature as claimed.
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 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.
(a)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 9-11, 14 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhardwaj et al (US 9542736 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Bhardwaj teaches An information processing system (Figs. 1-21) comprising:
an imaging device (client device 110/112) configured to capture a captured image (col. 13: “FIG. 13, with each image taken by the mobile camera or uploaded from the photo album, the networked system 102 helps the user (e.g., seller) to evaluate sharpness quality and provide them instant feedback. The user can then decide whether to take another picture for their listing product”); and
an information processing device (server 102) including circuitry configured to control the imaging device, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to perform recognition processing on the captured image, generate recognition metadata including data based on a result of the recognition processing, and output the recognition metadata to the imaging device, and wherein the recognition metadata (sharpness level) indicates high frequency components of the captured image (col. 13: “a mobile system or a web-based system may be configured to provide a user that uploads one or more photos of an object (e.g., a product to be listed in an e-commerce site or marketplace) instant feedback as to the quality of the uploaded photos. The feedback may comprise one or more indicators (e.g., numerical, graphical, etc.) to educate the user quantitatively as to the blurriness of the photo.”).
Regarding claim 2, Bhardwaj teaches the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device performs the recognition processing including at least one of subject recognition or region recognition in the captured image, and wherein the recognition metadata (a detected focus level of the whole detected region of the image) includes at least one of a result of the subject recognition or a result of the region recognition (Figs. 7, 20).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 10, Bhardwaj teaches An information processing system (Figs. 1-21) comprising:
an imaging device (client device 110/112) configured to capture a captured image (col. 13: “FIG. 13, with each image taken by the mobile camera or uploaded from the photo album, the networked system 102 helps the user (e.g., seller) to evaluate sharpness quality and provide them instant feedback. The user can then decide whether to take another picture for their listing product”); and
an information processing device (server 102) including circuitry configured to control the imaging device, wherein the circuitry of the information processing is further configured to perform recognition processing on the captured image, generate recognition metadata including data based on a result of the recognition processing, and output the recognition metadata to a device in a subsequent stage of processing, and wherein the recognition metadata indicates high frequency components of the captured image (col. 13: “a mobile system or a web-based system may be configured to provide a user that uploads one or more photos of an object (e.g., a product to be listed in an e-commerce site or marketplace) instant feedback as to the quality of the uploaded photos. The feedback may comprise one or more indicators (e.g., numerical, graphical, etc.) to educate the user quantitatively as to the blurriness of the photo.”).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 reciting features corresponding to claim 2 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 14, Bhardwaj teaches the information processing system according to claim 10, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to add at least a part of the recognition metadata to an output signal containing the captured image, and output the output signal to the device in the subsequent stage (Figs. 1, 15-20; col. 13: “Using the scheme, a mobile system or a web-based system may be configured to provide a user that uploads one or more photos of an object (e.g., a product to be listed in an e-commerce site or marketplace) instant feedback as to the quality of the uploaded photos. The feedback may comprise one or more indicators (e.g., numerical, graphical, etc.) to educate the user quantitatively as to the blurriness of the photo”).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 reciting features corresponding to claim 10 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 18, Bhardwaj teaches An information processing device (Figs. 1-21) comprising:
circuitry (processor 2102 of server 102) configured to
perform recognition processing on a captured image captured by an imaging device, generate recognition metadata including data based on a result of the recognition processing, and output the recognition metadata, wherein the recognition metadata indicates high frequency components of the captured image (col. 13: “FIG. 13, with each image taken by the mobile camera or uploaded from the photo album, the networked system 102 helps the user (e.g., seller) to evaluate sharpness quality and provide them instant feedback. The user can then decide whether to take another picture for their listing product”, “a mobile system or a web-based system may be configured to provide a user that uploads one or more photos of an object (e.g., a product to be listed in an e-commerce site or marketplace) instant feedback as to the quality of the uploaded photos. The feedback may comprise one or more indicators (e.g., numerical, graphical, etc.) to educate the user quantitatively as to the blurriness of the photo.”).
Regarding claim 19, Bhardwaj teaches the information processing device according to claim 18, wherein the circuitry outputs the recognition metadata (sharpness) to the imaging device (Fig. 15).
Regarding claim 20, Bhardwaj teaches the information processing device according to claim 18, wherein the circuitry outputs the recognition metadata to a device in a subsequent stage of processing.
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, 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 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al (US 9542736 B2) in view of Jannard et al (US 20120314116 A1).
Regarding claims 3-6, Bhardwaj teaches everything as claimed in claim 2, but fails to teach
Claim 3: The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the imaging device includes a display configured to display a live-view image, and circuitry configured to control display of the live-view image based on the recognition metadata.
Claim 4: The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to calculate a focus index value for a subject of a predetermined type recognized by the subject recognition, wherein the recognition metadata further includes the focus index value, and wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to superimpose an image indicating a position of the subject and the focus index value for the subject on the live-view image.
Claim 5: The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry of the imaging device superimposes the image indicating the position of the subject and the focus index value on the live-view image in different display modes for each subject.
Claim 6: The information processing system according to claim 3,
wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to perform peaking highlighting of the live-view image, peaking highlighting being limited to a region of a subject of a predetermined type, based on the recognition metadata.
However, in the same field of endeavor Jannard teaches
Claim 3: The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the imaging device includes a display configured to display a live-view image, and circuitry configured to control display of the live-view image based on the recognition metadata (Figs. 18-19; paras. 0092, 0100-0106, 0111; “display 1500 can update the focus level information depicted in the line graph 1502 to correspond to the newly displayed portion of the image 1504. The update can occur or at least appear to occur in substantially real-time”; displaying “plurality of indicators 1705a-d that change size, shape, and/or color corresponding to levels of focus at a plurality of focus regions”).
Claim 4: The information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to calculate a focus index value for a subject of a predetermined type recognized by the subject recognition, wherein the recognition metadata further includes the focus index value, and wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to superimpose an image indicating a position of the subject and the focus index value for the subject on the live-view image (Figs. 18-19; paras. 0100-0106, 0111; displaying “plurality of indicators 1705a-d that change size, shape, and/or color corresponding to levels of focus at a plurality of focus regions”).
Claim 5: The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the circuitry of the imaging device superimposes the image indicating the position of the subject and the focus index value on the live-view image in different display modes for each subject (Figs. 18-19; paras. 0100-0106, 0111).
Claim 6: The information processing system according to claim 3,
wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to perform peaking highlighting of the live-view image, peaking highlighting being limited to a region of a subject of a predetermined type, based on the recognition metadata (paras. 0061-0063; “the most focused object 306 has a bright highlight 818 that traces the object's edge. The least focused objects 310 have very dim highlights 822. The brightness of the highlight varies with the focus level of the object”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Jannard in Bhardwaj to have features of claims 3-6 for conveying to the user a level of focus of multiple objects in such a way as to provide feedback that is intuitive and making it relatively easy to quickly ascertain focus level yielding a predicted result.
Claims 7-8 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al (US 9542736 B2) in view of Shimauchi et al (US 20180109723 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8, Bhardwaj teaches everything as claimed in claim 1, but fails to teach
Claim 7: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to detect an imaging direction of the imaging device with respect to a predetermined reference direction, generate camera metadata including the detected imaging direction, and output the camera metadata to the information processing device, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to detect a deviation of the imaging direction included in the camera metadata based on the captured image, and wherein the generated recognition metadata includes data based on the detected deviation of the imaging direction.
Claim 8: The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device generates the recognition metadata including data used for correcting the reference direction based on the detected deviation of the imaging direction, and wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to correct the reference direction based on the recognition metadata.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shimauchi teaches
Claim 7: The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to detect an imaging direction of the imaging device with respect to a predetermined reference direction (para. 0057: “The installation state detection unit 240 generates sensor information for detecting a current installation state of the imaging device 200”), generate camera metadata including the detected imaging direction, and output the camera metadata to the information processing device (para. 0056: “communication unit 230 may transmit information including a current installation state of the imaging device 200 and/or an image captured by the imaging device 200 to the terminal device 100”), wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to detect a deviation of the imaging direction included in the camera metadata based on the captured image, and wherein the generated recognition metadata includes data based on the detected deviation of the imaging direction (Figs. 4, 9-14; steps S100-S108; para. 0064: “the adjustment element calculation unit 121 calculates an amount of adjustment of each imaging device 200 with respect to each element using the current installation states and appropriate installation states of the plurality of imaging devices 200 (S102)”).
Claim 8: The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device generates the recognition metadata including data used for correcting the reference direction based on the detected deviation of the imaging direction, and wherein the circuitry of the imaging device is further configured to correct the reference direction based on the recognition metadata (Figs. 4, 9-14, 16; steps S100-S108; paras. 0103-0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Shimauchi in Bhardwaj to have features of claims 7-8 for allowing the user easily shifting the imaging devices toward the appropriate installation states by following the instruction information output to the terminal device and the like when adjusting the installation states of the imaging devices yielding a predicted result.
Regarding claims 15-16, Bhardwaj teaches everything as claimed in claim 14, but fails to teach
Claim 15: The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the imaging device includes circuitry configured to generate camera metadata including a detection result of the imaging direction of the imaging device and outputs the camera metadata to the information processing device, and add at least a part of the generated camera metadata to the output signal.
Claim 16: The information processing system according to claim 15, wherein the camera metadata further includes at least one of control information of the imaging device or lens information regarding a lens of the imaging device.
However, in the same field of endeavor Shimauchi teaches
Claim 15: The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the imaging device includes circuitry configured to generate camera metadata including a detection result of the imaging direction of the imaging device (Fig. 3; para. 0057) and outputs the camera metadata to the information processing device, and add at least a part (461a) of the generated camera metadata to the output signal (Figs. 16; para. 0103).
Claim 16: The information processing system according to claim 15, wherein the camera metadata further includes at least one of control information (462a) of the imaging device or lens information regarding a lens of the imaging device (Fig. 16; para. 0104).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Shimauchi in Bhardwaj for allowing the user easily shifting the imaging devices toward the appropriate installation states by following the instruction information output to the terminal device and the like when adjusting the installation states of the imaging devices yielding a predicted result.
Claims 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhardwaj et al (US 9542736 B2) in view of Baruch (US 20170337693 A1).
Regarding claims 12-13, Bhardwaj teaches everything as claimed in claim 11, but fails to teach
Claim 12: The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to perform masking processing on a masking region, which is a region other than a region of a subject of a predetermined type in the captured image, and output the captured image after the masking processing to the device in the subsequent stage.
Claim 13: The information processing system according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to reduce a chroma component of the masking region, and compress a contrast of a luminance component of the masking region.
However, in the same field of endeavor Baruch teaches
Claim 12: The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to perform masking processing on a masking region, which is a region other than a region of a subject of a predetermined type in the captured image, and output the captured image after the masking processing to the device in the subsequent stage (para. 0062: “Process 500 may include “use subsequent contour to modify subsequent frame” 530, and as mentioned, the segmentation then may be used to modify the image such as with some desired filter, such as with color pop to color a foreground object while maintaining a background in black and white, blurring, oil painting, pencil sketch, posterization, and/or water color, just to name a few of many possible examples. Thereafter, process 500 may include “display subsequent frame in real-time” 532”).
Claim 13: The information processing system according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry of the information processing device is further configured to reduce a chroma component of the masking region, and compress a contrast of a luminance component of the masking region (para. 0062: “the segmentation then may be used to modify the image such as with some desired filter, such as with color pop to color a foreground object while maintaining a background in black and white, blurring, oil painting, pencil sketch, posterization, and/or water color, just to name a few of many possible examples”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Baruch in Bhardwaj to have features of claims 12-13 for providing real-time image segmentation allowing placing emphasis on objects on a preview screen with a color pop effect option yielding a predicted result.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637