Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 18, 2026
Application No. 18/315,131

Image Segmentation Method and Apparatus, Computer Device, and Readable Storage Medium

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
May 10, 2023
Examiner
WAIT, CHRISTOPHER
Art Unit
2683
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Suzhou Cleva Precision Machinery & Technology Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
303 granted / 399 resolved
+13.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +14% lift
Without
With
+13.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
411
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.4%
+3.4% vs TC avg
§102
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§112
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 399 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. 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. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “obtaining module configured to obtain a hue histogram”, “first determination module configured to determine a target parameter value”, “second determination module configured to determine a saturation segmentation threshold”, and “image segmentation module configured to perform image segmentation”, in claim 8. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1- 3-4, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub 2010/0202684 to Mattausch et al. Regarding claim 1. Mattausch discloses an image segmentation method (Abstract), comprising the steps of: obtaining a hue histogram corresponding to a hue channel image based on an original image (Fig. 22; “FIG. 22 is a figure showing a histogram of hue values of the body of a red vehicle”, paragraph 219) determining a target parameter value based on the hue histogram (“Referring to FIGS. 22 and 23, most pixels are intensively extracted in the range of .+-.10 degrees with the center being the histogram mountain. Also, the amount of change in the difference of the hue values between pixels is very small, i.e., within about 10 degrees, in an identical region (an identical color)”, paragraph 220, “it was found out that colors whose hues are close to each other can also be subjected to segmentation when the minimum unit of the hue (H) is set to 4 degrees”, paragraph 218, “FIG. 24 is a schematic diagram of the weight calculating unit 32 shown in FIG. 2. Referring to FIG. 24, the weight calculating unit 32 includes a connection weight computing circuit 320, a hue-difference calculating circuit 330, a saturation-difference calculating circuit 340, connection weight correcting circuits 350 and 360, a selector-signal generating circuit 370, and a selector 380”, paragraph 223; “The saturation-difference calculating circuit 340 holds the S-bin-number assignment diagram shown in FIG. 16 and receives an S bin number .sub.A and an S bin number .sub.B from the D latch circuit 27 and the FIFO circuit 28, respectively. The saturation-difference calculating circuit 340 then refers to the S-bin-number assignment diagram shown in FIG. 16 to detect S values S.sub.A and S.sub.B corresponding to the received S bin number .sub.A and S bin number .sub.B. Then, the saturation-difference calculating circuit 340 computes a saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| and outputs the computed saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| to the connection weight correcting circuit 360”, paragraph 234; “the connection weight correcting circuit 360 determines whether or not the saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| is "6" or less. When the saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| is "6" or less, the connection weight correcting circuit 360 extracts, from Table 2, a connection weight W.sub.A,B--S corresponding to the absolute value |I.sub.ij-I.sub.kl| that matches the connection weight W.sub.A,B and corresponding to "if.ltoreq.6", and outputs the extracted connection weight W.sub.A,B--S to the selector 380”, paragraph 241, see also paragraphs 242-244); determining a saturation segmentation threshold as a first threshold range if the target parameter value satisfies a preset condition, otherwise determining the saturation segmentation threshold as a second threshold range, where a minimum value of the first threshold range is greater than a minimum value of the second threshold range (“[0286] Thus, the selector-signal generating circuit 370 determines whether or not the saturation S.sub.i+1,j is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) and the saturation S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) (step S271). [0287] When it is determined in step S271 that the saturation S.sub.i+1,j is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) and the saturation S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2), the selector-signal generating circuit 370 generates the selector signal SEL_RGB and outputs the generated selector signal SEL_RGB to the selector 380. [0289] On the other hand, when it is determined in step S271 that the saturation S.sub.i+1,j is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) and the saturation S.sub.kl is not smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2), the selector-signal generating circuit 370 further determines whether or not only one of the saturations S.sub.i+1,j and S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) (step S273). [0290] Then, when it is determined in step S273 that only one of the saturations S.sub.i+1,j and S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2), the selector-signal generating circuit 370 generates the selector signal SEL_S and outputs the generated selector signal SEL_S to the selector 380”, paragraphs 286-290); and performing image segmentation in combination with the first threshold range or the second threshold range as determined in the previous step (“The image segmentation apparatus 10 repeatedly executes the flowcharts shown in FIG. 26 (FIGS. 27 to 29) to segment each frame into images of subjects”, paragraph 303). Regarding claim 3. Mattausch discloses wherein the target parameter value comprises at least one of a peak pixel quantity, a hue value corresponding to the peak pixel quantity, a pixel quantity corresponding to zero hue, and a rightmost valid hue value on a horizontal axis (See histograms of Fig. 22 & 23; “0219] FIG. 22 is a figure showing a histogram of hue values of the body of a red vehicle. Also, FIG. 23 is a figure showing a histogram of hue values of the body of a blue vehicle. [0220] Referring to FIGS. 22 and 23, most pixels are intensively extracted in the range of .+-.10 degrees with the center being the histogram mountain. Also, the amount of change in the difference of the hue values between pixels is very small, i.e., within about 10 degrees, in an identical region (an identical color). [0221] Thus, considering the above-described empirical results, three determination conditions, i.e., 4 degrees or less, 5 to 8 degrees, and other degrees, are provided with respect to the difference |H.sub.ij-H.sub.kl| in the hue values between two pixels, and the connection weight conversion table in the case shown in FIG. 18(c) is determined as shown in Table 3”, paragraphs 219-221). Regarding claim 4. Mattausch discloses wherein the preset condition comprises any of the following: condition A: the peak pixel quantity is greater than a first peak, the hue value corresponding to the peak pixel quantity is less than a first hue value, the rightmost valid hue value on the horizontal axis is less than a second hue value, and the pixel quantity corresponding to zero hue is greater than a preset pixel quantity; and condition B: the peak pixel quantity is greater than a second peak, the second peak is greater than the first peak, the hue value corresponding to the peak pixel quantity is less than the first hue value, and the rightmost valid hue value on the horizontal axis is less than the second hue value (See histograms of Fig. 22 & 23; “0219] FIG. 22 is a figure showing a histogram of hue values of the body of a red vehicle. Also, FIG. 23 is a figure showing a histogram of hue values of the body of a blue vehicle. [0220] Referring to FIGS. 22 and 23, most pixels are intensively extracted in the range of .+-.10 degrees with the center being the histogram mountain. Also, the amount of change in the difference of the hue values between pixels is very small, i.e., within about 10 degrees, in an identical region (an identical color). [0221] Thus, considering the above-described empirical results, three determination conditions, i.e., 4 degrees or less, 5 to 8 degrees, and other degrees, are provided with respect to the difference |H.sub.ij-H.sub.kl| in the hue values between two pixels, and the connection weight conversion table in the case shown in FIG. 18(c) is determined as shown in Table 3”, paragraphs 219-221). Regarding claim 8. Mattausch discloses an image segmentation apparatus (Abstract) comprising: an obtaining module configured to obtain a hue histogram corresponding to a hue channel image based on an original image (Fig. 22; “FIG. 22 is a figure showing a histogram of hue values of the body of a red vehicle”, paragraph 219); a first determination module configured to determine a target parameter value based on the hue histogram (“Referring to FIGS. 22 and 23, most pixels are intensively extracted in the range of .+-.10 degrees with the center being the histogram mountain. Also, the amount of change in the difference of the hue values between pixels is very small, i.e., within about 10 degrees, in an identical region (an identical color)”, paragraph 220, “it was found out that colors whose hues are close to each other can also be subjected to segmentation when the minimum unit of the hue (H) is set to 4 degrees”, paragraph 218, “FIG. 24 is a schematic diagram of the weight calculating unit 32 shown in FIG. 2. Referring to FIG. 24, the weight calculating unit 32 includes a connection weight computing circuit 320, a hue-difference calculating circuit 330, a saturation-difference calculating circuit 340, connection weight correcting circuits 350 and 360, a selector-signal generating circuit 370, and a selector 380”, paragraph 223; “The saturation-difference calculating circuit 340 holds the S-bin-number assignment diagram shown in FIG. 16 and receives an S bin number .sub.A and an S bin number .sub.B from the D latch circuit 27 and the FIFO circuit 28, respectively. The saturation-difference calculating circuit 340 then refers to the S-bin-number assignment diagram shown in FIG. 16 to detect S values S.sub.A and S.sub.B corresponding to the received S bin number .sub.A and S bin number .sub.B. Then, the saturation-difference calculating circuit 340 computes a saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| and outputs the computed saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| to the connection weight correcting circuit 360”, paragraph 234; “the connection weight correcting circuit 360 determines whether or not the saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| is "6" or less. When the saturation difference |S.sub.A-S.sub.B| is "6" or less, the connection weight correcting circuit 360 extracts, from Table 2, a connection weight W.sub.A,B--S corresponding to the absolute value |I.sub.ij-I.sub.kl| that matches the connection weight W.sub.A,B and corresponding to "if.ltoreq.6", and outputs the extracted connection weight W.sub.A,B--S to the selector 380”, paragraph 241, see also paragraphs 242-244); a second determination module configured to determine a saturation segmentation threshold as a first threshold range if the target parameter value satisfies a preset condition, otherwise to determine the saturation segmentation threshold as a second threshold range, where a minimum value of the first threshold range is greater than a minimum value of the second threshold range (“[0286] Thus, the selector-signal generating circuit 370 determines whether or not the saturation S.sub.i+1,j is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) and the saturation S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) (step S271). [0287] When it is determined in step S271 that the saturation S.sub.i+1,j is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) and the saturation S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2), the selector-signal generating circuit 370 generates the selector signal SEL_RGB and outputs the generated selector signal SEL_RGB to the selector 380. [0289] On the other hand, when it is determined in step S271 that the saturation S.sub.i+1,j is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) and the saturation S.sub.kl is not smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2), the selector-signal generating circuit 370 further determines whether or not only one of the saturations S.sub.i+1,j and S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2) (step S273). [0290] Then, when it is determined in step S273 that only one of the saturations S.sub.i+1,j and S.sub.kl is smaller than or equal to the threshold Sth (=0.2), the selector-signal generating circuit 370 generates the selector signal SEL_S and outputs the generated selector signal SEL_S to the selector 380”, paragraphs 286-290); and an image segmentation module configured to perform image segmentation in combination with the first threshold range or the second threshold range determined by the second determination module (“The image segmentation apparatus 10 repeatedly executes the flowcharts shown in FIG. 26 (FIGS. 27 to 29) to segment each frame into images of subjects”, paragraph 303). Regarding claim 9. Claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 1. Regarding claim 10. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 1. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 2, 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PG Pub 2010/0177234 to Ogura et al. discloses an image processing device appropriately extracts an entire object from an image even if the object is not completely included in an initial region designated by a user. The image processing device includes: a designation unit designating a position on the image; a setting unit setting a first combination consisting of a first object region candidate and a first background region candidate, and a second combination; a histogram generation unit generating a normalized color histogram of each of the regions; a similarity calculation unit calculating a similarity regarding each of the combinations; and a selection unit configured to select a combination from the first and second combinations so that the selected combination has the similarity lower than the similarity of the non-selected combination. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq. whose telephone number is (571)270-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30- 6:00. 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, Benny Tieu can be reached at (571) 272-7490. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq. Primary Examiner Art Unit 2682 /CHRISTOPHER WAIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 10, 2023
Application Filed
Nov 29, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Apr 06, 2026
Response Filed

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597085
Use of Imperfect Patterns to Encode Data on Surfaces
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591964
COMPUTATIONAL METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR IMPROVED IDENTIFICATION OF BREAST LESIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590797
METHOD TO REQUALIFY DIE AFTER STORAGE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12586148
EFFICIENT IMAGE WARPING BASED ON USER INPUT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585906
IMAGE FORMING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+13.6%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 399 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month