Detailed Action
1. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 amendment
3. Applicant’s response to the last Office Action filed on 01/09/2026 has been entered and made of record.
4. Claims1,8 and 15 have been amended.
.
Response to Argument
5. The Applicant’s argument filed 03/10/2026 is fully consider. For Examiner response see discussion below.
a. The Applicant’s argue “Based on the figure and paragraphs above, KANA YAMA merely discloses that the shooting control unit 26 controls hardware conditions of the image sensor 21 and the hardware conditions can be the focus, aperture of the lens, and aperture mechanism. KANA YAMA does not disclose to control or adjust the image captured by the image sensor 21.”, emphasis is added by the Applicant .
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s argument for the reason discuss below :
KANAYAMA disclosed “First, the surveillance camera 1 captures an image as shown by P1. Then, in the monitoring camera 1, the image data is trimmed so as to have a size that matches the aspect ratio of the display screen of the mobile phone 3, and the image data within the broken line frame indicated by F1 is transmitted to the center device 2.”.
From the above description it follows that KANAYAMA teaches a method of controlling or adjusting the image by a converting the image data into image data having an aspect ratio suitable for the display screen of the mobile phone 3.
b. Applicant’s has amended claim 1, by adding the highlighted limitation as shown below:
“a top-view calibration process on the input image to generate a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle”
Then substantially argue that KANA YAMA does not the above limitation as amended
The Applicant’s argument is persuasive KANA YAMA does not teach generate a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle”.
However, after further search and consideration a new prior art that teach the added limitation is found. found. Specifically, JP WO2020090985 A1 teaches A bird's-eye view image generation unit 914, where the bird's-eye view image generation unit 914 deforms the image captured by the peripheral surveillance camera 124 based on a predetermined deformation formula based on the arrangement of the peripheral surveillance camera 124 to generate a partial bird's-eye view image P31, and generates a partial bird's-eye view image P31. Place it at a predetermined position on P3. The partial bird's-eye view image P31 is a top-view image that constitutes a part of the bird's-eye view image P3. Then, the bird's-eye view image generation unit 914 draws the work vehicle image P32 that draws the upper surface of the work vehicle 100 at the center of the bird's-eye view image P3.( see page 8 2nd par.) It is also known that a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle, often called a bird's-eye view or orthographic projection
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.
6. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAYAMA et al., (hereafter KANAYAMA), JP2003199097, pub, 07/11/2003, in view of
JP WO2020090985 A1, pub. 10/21/2021.
As to claim 1, KANAYAMA teaches An image processing method, comprising: receiving, by a processor, an input image from a camera (Fig.3 [0001], a monitoring system center device used in a monitoring system that is capable of transmitting images captured by to a mobile terminal via a communication network, where to the mobile terminal includes a process 16 as shown in Fig.3 configured to capture to receive and image captured by a camera );
performing, by the processor, a top-view calibration process to generate a top-view calibrated image (Fig.4 [0039], [0045], The lens and aperture mechanisms adjust (calibration)the focus and aperture. Specifically, the shooting control unit 26 controls the surveillance camera's operations includes regulating the lens focus and aperture mechanism to ensure clear, well-lit images, controls the shutter speed for proper exposure and the intervals for continuous shooting. Top-view image corresponds to the image captured by surveillance camera. It is clear that a surveillance camera can capture a top-view image (or video) of a moving or stationary object. );
performing, by the processor, an object extraction process on the top-view calibrated image to generate at least one target object frame ([0005]-[0006], [0009], the surveillance camera captures an image such as that shown in P11. When this captured image is sent to the mobile phone 51, first, image data of the area indicated by the dashed frame F11 in the figure is extracted in accordance with the aspect ratio of the display screen 52 of the mobile phone 51);
performing, by the processer, a centering process on the at least one target object frame to generate a centered image ([0066], [0088]-[0089], first, the surveillance camera 1 captures an image as shown in P1. Then, in the surveillance camera 1, the image data is trimmed to a size that matches the aspect ratio of the display screen of the mobile phone 3, and the image data within the dashed frame indicated by F1 is transmitted to the center device. The centering process corresponding to the image trimming process in order to match the trimmed image with the center of the display screen of the phone); and
outputting, by the processor, the centered image for a display panel to display ([0089], the image data is trimmed to a size that matches the aspect ratio of the display screen of the mobile phone 3, and the image data within the dashed frame indicated by F1 is transmitted to the center device 2. The mage is displayed on the mobile phone 3 screen).
However, it is noted that , KANAYAMA does not specifically teach the underline section of : “a top-view calibration process on the input image to generate a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle” .Although KANAYAMA teaches the surveillance camera to capture an image. It is clear that the surveillance camera can capture a top-view image (or video) of a moving or stationary object.
On the other hand JP WO2020090985 A1 teaches a top-view calibration process on the input image to generate a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle (Page 8 2nd par., A bird's-eye view image generation unit 914, deforms the image captured by the peripheral surveillance camera 124 based on a predetermined deformation formula based on the arrangement of the peripheral surveillance camera 124 to generate a partial bird's-eye view image P31, The partial bird's-eye view image P31 is a top-view image that constitutes a part of the bird's-eye view image P3. Then, the bird's-eye view image generation unit 914 draws the work vehicle image P32 that draws the upper surface of the work vehicle 100 at the center of the bird's-eye view image P3. It is also known that a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle, often called a bird's-eye view or orthographic projection).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a bird's-eye view image generation unit 914 taught by JP WO2020090985 A1 into KANAYAMA.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow user of
KANAYAMA to provides a comprehensive, top-down perspective, eliminating blind spots and allowing for the monitoring of large areas with fewer cameras.
As to claim 8, KANAYAMA teaches An image processing system, comprising: a camera configured to capture an input image; a memory configured to store a program comprising a plurality of instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to perform ([0054], Various programs are read from the disk device 8 into this memory 10 and executed by the CPU 9, thereby realizing a user authentication unit (authentication unit) 14, an accounting unit 15, an image recognition processing unit 16 (partial area extraction means), an email processing unit (sending means) 17, a WEB function unit 18, an image conversion unit (image conversion means) 19, and a surveillance camera instruction unit (sending means) 20 shown in Figure 3. That is, each of these processing units is realized by a program that causes a computer to execute each process),
However, it is noted that , KANAYAMA does not specifically teach the underline section of : “a top-view calibration process on the input image to generate a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle” .Although KANAYAMA teaches the surveillance camera to capture an image. It is clear that the surveillance camera can capture a top-view image (or video) of a moving or stationary object.
On the other hand JP WO2020090985 A1 teaches a top-view calibration process on the input image to generate a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle (Page 8 2nd par., A bird's-eye view image generation unit 914, deforms the image captured by the peripheral surveillance camera 124 based on a predetermined deformation formula based on the arrangement of the peripheral surveillance camera 124 to generate a partial bird's-eye view image P31, The partial bird's-eye view image P31 is a top-view image that constitutes a part of the bird's-eye view image P3. Then, the bird's-eye view image generation unit 914 draws the work vehicle image P32 that draws the upper surface of the work vehicle 100 at the center of the bird's-eye view image P3. It is also known that a top-view calibrated image with a directly-above viewing angle, often called a bird's-eye view or orthographic projection). The motivation applied to claim 1 above also applied to claim 8
As to claim 15, KANAYAMA teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a program comprising a plurality of instructions, wherein when a processor executes the instructions, the processor performs following operations ([0121], a recording medium having recorded thereon a monitoring system center program according to the present invention is configured to cause a computer having a communication function and a data storage function to execute each of the means provided in the monitoring system center device according to the present invention);
regarding the remaining limitations of claim 15, all the remaining limitations are rejected
the same as claims 1 except claim 15 is directed to a computer program claim. All the remaining limitations of claim 15 are addressed in claim 1. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 1 is applicable to claim 15.
7. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAYAMA, JP2003199097A1, in view of JP WO2020090985 A1, further in view Sadok, Mokhtar (hereafter Sadok), US 20040061777 A1, pub. 04/01/2004.
As to claim 2, KANAYAMA teaches performing, by the processor, the top-view calibration process (this limitation is discussed in claim 1 above);
however it is notice that modified KANAYAMA does not specifically teach the underline limitations of “performing, by the processor, a distortion calibration process on the input image to generate a distortion calibrated image performing, by the processor, the top-view calibration process on the distortion calibrated image to generate the top-view calibrated image”
On the other hand in the same field of endeavor video data processing of Sadok teaches performing, by the processor, a distortion calibration process on the input image to generate a distortion calibrated image performing, by the processor, the top-view calibration process on the distortion calibrated image to generate the top-view calibrated image ([0056], the video signal provided to the video displays 162, 164 may be either the video signal provided directly by the cameras or may be an enhanced video signal, which represents the video signal from the cameras that has been processed to remove unwanted artifacts, such as the effects of vibration and distortion caused by lenses.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known procedure of correcting lens distortion in image taught by Sadok into modified KANAYAMA.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow user of KANAYAMA to
restore geometric accuracy the images. By rectifying optical errors that make straight lines appear curved, images can represent the true proportions and spatial relationships of a scene.
Claim 9 is s rejected the same as claim 2 except claim 9 is directed to a system claim. All the limitations of claim 9 are addressed in claim 2. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim2 is applicable to claim 9.
Claim 16 is s rejected the same as claim 2 except claim 16 is directed to a computer program claim. All the limitations of claim 16 are addressed in claim 2. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim2 is applicable to claim 16.
8. Claims 3-6, 10-12, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAYAMA, JP2003199097A1, in view of JP WO2020090985 A1, further in view Sadok, US 20040061777 A1,still further in view of HAN et al., (hereafter HAN), CN 111798459, pub. 10/20/2020
As to claim 3, KANAYAMA teaches performing, by the processor, the object extraction process on the top-view calibrated image comprises: performing, by the processor, performing, by the processor, an object detection process on the at least one object frame to determine the at least one target object frame from the at least one object frame([0014], In the above configuration, the partial image extraction means is capable of extracting a designated object from the photographed image data Therefore, a user of a mobile terminal can obtain a partial image containing an object for which he or she wishes to obtain a detailed view, simply by specifying the object, such as a person, a type of animal, or a car… );
however, it is noted that modified KANAYAMA does not specifically teach “a filtering process and a sharpen process on the top-view calibrated image to generate a processed image; and performing, by the processor, a color segmentation process. ”
On the other hand Sadok teaches a filtering process and a sharpen process on the top-view calibrated image to generate a processed image([0073], Most of these artifacts may be automatically factored out without expensive preprocessing by considering the presence of change between video frames. Straight and effective techniques that include image subtraction and image averaging may be used in the system described herein. Smoothing filters (e.g. low-pass filters and median filters) as well as sharpening filters (e.g. high-pass filters) that are simple and effective in dealing with background noise and illumination irregularities may be used.);
an edge detection process to locate at least one object frame ([0088], 0102]. Edge extraction routines detect edges by locating portions of the image having a pixel intensity gradient greater than a predetermined value. The output of an edge detection routine, the edge locations in the imagine, may be indicated by a pixel having a first value (i.e., one or zero) where edges are detected and by a pixel having a second, different, value for areas of an image where no edges are detected…. );
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known procedure of sharpening an image taught by Sadok into modified KANAYAMA.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow user of KANAYAMA to enhance the image details by increasing contrast along the edges of objects.
However it is noted that the combination of KANAYAMA and Sadok does not specifically teach “performing, by the processor, a color segmentation process”
On the other hand in the same field of endeavor color image processing of HAN teaches
performing, by the processor, a color segmentation process ( page 3 1st- 3rd pars., when the color complexity C of the image is less than or equal to 0.5, classifying is the type using standard difference + HSV color segmentation; when the color complexity C> 0.5 of the image, classifying is the type of using Canopy + Kmeans clustering division, C is the color complexity of the image.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well-known Canopy + Kmeans clustering algorithm to carry out color segmentation process taught by HAN into modified KANAYAMA.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow user of modified
KANAYAMA to isolate specific color ranges. Specifically the color segmentation process can effectively separate an object of interest from complex or "noisy" backgrounds that would otherwise confuse edge-based or intensity-based detection.
As to claim 4, KANAYAMA teaches wherein performing, by the processor, the object detection process on the at least one object frame comprises: performing, by the processor, the object detection process and an object exclusion process on the at least one object frame to determine the at least one target object frame from the at least one object frame ([0013], [0084], the monitoring system center device of the present invention may be configured so that the partial image extraction means extracts the object indicated by the mobile terminal from the captured image data by image recognition processing, and extracts image data of a partial area including the object. Thus, Exclude the areas that do not include the object. For example, when an image of a wide area is first received and displayed on the mobile phone 3, dividing lines dividing the image into multiple small areas may be displayed, and by specifying the small area to be enlarged
As to claim 5, KANAYAMA teaches the at least one target object frame comprises a plurality of target object frames, and a plurality of target objects in the plurality of target object frames belong to a target object([0088] The control of the shooting conditions of a surveillance camera includes the conventional controls of starting and stopping shooting, shooting direction, and zoom, as well as new controls such as shutter speed control, aperture control, output screen size (number of pixels), and the number of frames shot during continuous shooting (n frames/second))
As to claim 6, KANAYAMA teaches, wherein performing, by the processor, the centering process on the at least one target object frame comprises: determining, by the processor, an integrated target object frame according to the at least one target object frame ([0014], , the partial image extraction means is capable of extracting a designated object from the photographed image data. Therefore, a user of a mobile terminal can obtain a partial image containing an object for which he or she wishes to obtain a detailed view, simply by specifying the object, such as a person, a type of animal, or a car.); and
cropping, by the processor, the processed image according to the integrated target object frame to enlarge and center the integrated target object frame so as to generate the centered image([0012] and [0089], First, the surveillance camera 1 captures an image as shown in P1. Then, in the surveillance camera 1, the image data is trimmed to a size that matches the aspect ratio of the display screen of the mobile phone 3, and the image data within the dashed frame indicated by F1 is transmitted to the center device 2. Enlarging an image, the relevant partial area is extracted from the image data as high-resolution original data recorded in the image data recording means in the monitoring system center device, and this is sent to the mobile terminal, making it possible to display an enlarged image on the mobile terminal that includes detailed information contained in the original captured image data.)
Claim 10 is rejected the same as claim 3 except claim 10is directed to a system claim. All the limitations of claim 10 are addressed in claim 3. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 3 is applicable to claim 10.
Claim 17 is s rejected the same as claim 3 except claim 17 is directed to a computer program claim. All the limitations of claim 17 are addressed in claim 3. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim3 is applicable to claim 17.
Claim 11 is rejected the same as claim 4 except claim 11 is directed to a system claim. All the limitations of claim 11 are addressed in claim 4. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 4 is applicable to claim 11.
Claim 18 is s rejected the same as claim 4 except claim 18 is directed to a computer program claim. All the limitations of claim 18 are addressed in claim 4. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 4 is applicable to claim 18
Claim 12 is rejected the same as claim 6 except claim 12 is directed to a system claim. All the limitations of claim 12 are addressed in claim 6. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 6 is applicable to claim 12.
As to claim 14, KANAYAMA teaches wherein a center point of an enlarged integrated target object frame is aligned with a center point of the centered image, wherein an aspect ratio of the enlarged integrated target object frame is equal to an aspect ratio of the integrated target object frame([0089], the image data is trimmed to a size that matches the aspect ratio of the display screen of the mobile phone 3, and the image data within the dashed frame indicated by F1 is transmitted to the center device 2).
Claim 19 is rejected the same as claim 6 except claim 19 is directed to a computer program claim. All the limitations of claim 19 are addressed in claim 6. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 6 is applicable to claim 19.
9. Claims 7,13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANAYAMA, JP2003199097A1, in view of JP WO2020090985 A1 further in view Sadok, US 20040061777 A1, still further in view of HAN HAN), CN 111798459, still more further in view Cohen et al., (hereafter Cohen), US 20050226502 A1, pub 10/23/2005
Regarding claim 7, while modified KANAYAMA teaches the limitation of claim 6, but fails to teach the limitation of claim 7.
On the other hand in the same field of endeavor a method of rendering of video data of Cohen teaches the input image is a dynamic image and the image processing method further comprises: performing, by the processor, a smooth curve process on the integrated target object frame of a first frame in the dynamic image and the integrated target object frame of a second frame in the dynamic image(Fig. 1, [0068], [0016], FIG. 1 is a graphical illustration of frames of a sample video. Generally speaking, the video is composed of video data for the creation of multiple frames of video where each frame differs slightly from another in such a way that viewing the series of frames gives the illusion of real motion. When sliced, the final smoothed edge sheets produce smooth curves that approximately follow the surfaces of the regions. The smoothing step may pull some edges away from the exact boundary between colored regions but this provides a good balance between stroke smoothness and semantic region shape).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a well- known method of generating a smooth curve taught by Cohen into modified KANAYAMA.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow user of modified
KANAYAMA to ensure that transitions between different brightness intensities appear gradual and natural rather than stepped or "banded”.
Claim 13 is rejected the same as claim 7 except claim 13 is directed to a system claim. All the limitations of claim 13 are addressed in claim 7. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 7 is applicable to claim 13.
Claim 20 is rejected the same as claim 7 except claim 20 is directed to a computer program claim. All the limitations of claim 20 are addressed in claim 7. Thus, argument analogous to that presented above for claim 7 is applicable to claim 20.
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 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Mekonen Bekele whose telephone number is (469) 295-9077.The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00AM to 6:50 PM Eastern Time.
If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Eng, George can be reached on (571) 272-7495.The fax phone number for the organization where the application or proceeding is assigned is 571-237-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished application is available through Privet PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have question on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.
//MEKONEN T BEKELE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights