DETAILED ACTION
1. Applicant’s amendment filed on February 23, 2026 in which claims 1, 10 and 11 were amended, and claims 12-18 were added, has been fully considered and entered, but the arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-6 and 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US Patent no. 8,139,121) in view of Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0050664).
Regarding claim 1, Ito discloses a video compression apparatus configured to compress a plurality of frames outputted from an imaging element that has a plurality of imaging regions in which a subject is captured and that can set imaging conditions for each of the imaging regions (See Ito col. 6, lines 9-15 and col. 7, lines 25-38), the video compression apparatus comprising a processor programmed to: acquire first data outputted from a first imaging region of a plurality of imaging regions of the imaging element in which a first frame rate is set and second data outputted from a second imaging region of the plurality of imaging regions of the imaging element in which a second frame rate is set (See Fig. 9, output of image area A with processor 5 acquiring output of image area A and image area B, Ito col. 6, lines 60-67, col. 7, lines 1-8 ); the second imaging region being different from the first imaging region (See Ito col. 2, lines 63-67, col. 3, lines 1-12: note image area A and image area B); generate a plurality of first frames based on the first data outputted from the first imaging region and generate a plurality of second frames based on the second data outputted from the second imaging region (See Fig. 11, with output A and B going to target subject detecting device 8, and divided area setting device 2, Ito col. 6, lines 53-65, and col. 8, lines 19-40); compress the plurality of first frames to generate first compression data and compress the plurality of second frames to generate second compression data (See Ito col. 6, lines 37-44 and col. 10, lines 19-37).
It is noted that Ito is silent about performing a first compression process and compress the plurality of second frames by performing a second compression process that is different from the first compression process, wherein the processor is programmed to perform the first compression process on the plurality of first frames while performing the second compression process on the plurality of second frames.
However, Yang teaches performing a first compression process and compress the plurality of second frames by performing a second compression process that is different from the first compression process, wherein the processor is programmed to perform the first compression process on the plurality of first frames while performing the second compression process on the plurality of second frames (See Yang [0028]-[0029] Note that each image region requires a compression process based on the region of interest, and also the display device requires more than one processor as evidenced in Yang [0003]-[0004]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Ito to incorporate Yang’s teachings to perform a first compression process and compress the plurality of second frames by performing a second compression process that is different from the first compression process, wherein the processor is programmed to perform the first compression process on the plurality of first frames while performing the second compression process on the plurality of second frames. The motivation for performing such a modification in Ito to reduce file size and effectively save the transmission bandwidth and other resources as taught by Yang (See Yang [0069]).
As per claim 2, the combination of Ito and Yang further teaches wherein the processor is programmed to generate the plurality of first frames based on the first data outputted from the first imaging region and the second data outputted from the second imaging region (See Ito imaging device 1, outputting frame from first image region A and second image region B, and col. 7, lines 29-35).
As per claims 3-4, the combination of Ito and Yang further teaches wherein the processor is programmed to generate the plurality of second frames based on the second data outputted from the second imaging region and data not based on output from the imaging (or second) element (See Ito col. 7, lines 21-35).
As per claims 5-6, the combination of Ito and Yang further teaches wherein the processor is programmed to generate the plurality of second frames based on the second data by complementing regions for which the first data was not output (See Ito col. 6, lines 37-44: note that adjustment will provide the claimed compensation).
As per claim 10, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejections of claim 1. In addition, the combination of Ito and Yang further provides processor 5 of Fig. 9 to be programmed to perform the steps of claim 1.
As per claim 11, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejections of claim 1. In addition, the combination of Ito and Yang further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium as specified in the claim (See Yang [0007] and [0026]).
As per claims 12-13, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejections of claim 1 and 6. In addition, the combination of Ito and Yang further teaches wherein the processor is programmed to perform the first compression on the plurality of first frames and the second compression on the plurality of second frames in parallel (Yang [0108] and [0180]).
As per claims 14-16, most of the limitations of this claim have been noted in the above rejections of claim 1. In addition, the combination of Ito and Yang further teaches controlling the recording of the compressed frames (See Yang [0161]).
As per claims 17-18, it is noted that while the combination of Ito and Yang does not specifically interpolate third frame to generate fourth with a specific timing.
However, Ito teach interpolating frames in col. 9, lines 26-61 to obtain a target frame (“For example, the pixel signals (of the same position of the relevant image area) belonging to the frames immediately before and after a target frame for the interpolation are subjected to a specific arithmetic operation so as to obtain an interpolated signal for the target frame.
(74) More specifically, when F and E respectively indicate the signals of the frames immediately before and after the target frame, the signal of the interpolated frame C can be computed using the following formula: C=(n.times.F+m.times.E)/(n+m)” ).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Ito and Yang to propose interpolating third image with a timing to generate a fourth image as an alternative design choice since Ito clearly propose a formula to perform image manipulation.
5. Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito (US Patent no. 8,139,121) in view Yang et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2019/0050664) as applied to claims 3 above, and further in view of Border et al. (US Patent Application Publication no. 2010/0231738).
Regarding claims 7-8, most of the limitations of these claims have been noted in the above rejection of claim 3.
It is noted that the combination of Ito and Yang is silent about detect motion vectors for image data in a region generated based on the second data outputted from imaging regions among the plurality of the frames as claimed.
However, Border teaches image compression of a plurality of frames with image regions including detecting motion vectors for image data in a region generated based on the data outputted from imaging regions among the plurality of the frames (See Border’s Abstract, [001]-[0014], and [0034]).
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying the combination of Ito and Yang to incorporate Border’s teachings to provide teaches image compression of a plurality of frames with image regions including detecting motion vectors for image data in a region generated based on the data outputted from imaging regions among the plurality of the frames. The motivation for performing such as modification in Ito is to reduce motion blur in a video without increasing the bandwidth require for the video (See Border [0015]).
As per claim 9, most of the limitations of this claims have been noted in the above rejection of claim 7.
In addition, the combination of the combination of Ito, Yang and Border further teaches motion compensation in Border [0038] where motion assessment is performed where the capture condition is adjusted based on the motion.
Therefore, it is considered obvious that one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, would recognize the advantage of modifying Ito to incorporate Border’s teachings to provide motion compensation as claimed. The motivation for performing such a modification is to reduce noise in the final image.
6. 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.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIMS S PHILIPPE whose telephone number is (571)272-7336. The examiner can normally be reached Maxi Flex.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/GIMS S PHILIPPE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights