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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1, 3 – 11, and 13 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by MORITA HIROYOSHI (JP 2013-066016A; Translation provided in office action, note: the paragraph numberings cited in the rejection section correspond to the translated sections).
Regarding claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches a system (figures 2, 4, 8 – 9, and 15) comprising: one or more memories (paragraphs 0020 – 0022, 0024, 0026, 0029 – 0030, 0045 – 0046, 0053, 0055, 0064, 0124 - 0127; memories); and at least one processor coupled to at least one of the one or more memories and configured to perform operations (paragraph 0124 - 0127; CPU) comprising: obtain a first image frame and a second image frame corresponding to a field of view of an image sensor (figure 13 G10 and G20); identify at least one occlusion within the second image frame based on a comparison between the first image frame and the second image frame, wherein the at least one occlusion obfuscates a portion of the field of view of the image sensor (figure 13 item G20, with region of leg); and remove the at least one occlusion from the second image frame to yield a revised second image frame, wherein the revised second image frame includes prior image data within an area corresponding to the portion of the field of view obfuscated by the at least one occlusion (figure 13 item G30).
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: modify the revised second image frame to include a transparent outline of the at least one occlusion (paragraph 0083 teaches superimposing the contour image processed by the processing unit 313 b on such a background image G 30; wherein image processed by the processing unit 313 b is the contour image as shown in figure 11 as discussed in at least paragraph 0075; and S30 is the reconstructed background image as shown in figure 13 G30).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one occlusion includes at least one of precipitation, vegetation, smoke, an insect, a shadow, a droplet, a dropping, a cobweb, and an object (figures 12 – 13; person; additionally, paragraphs 0069 – 0093 and 0122, a person, animal, a vehicle, or the like).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determine a quality score for the revised second image frame, wherein the quality score is based on at least one of a size of the at least one occlusion and a temporal metric associated with the prior image data (figures 12 – 13; comparing area and movement to determine adjustment metrics i.e. score).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 5, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determine that the quality score is less than an acceptable threshold (paragraphs 0014, 0025, 0031, 0033, 0038 - 0044, 0051 – 0052, 0059 - 0060, 0066, 0091, 0096, 0099 – 0100, 0110; threshold compared); and in response, send an alert to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0095 – 0099, 0102, 0104, and 0110; notification).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: send a notification of the at least one occlusion to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0014, 0025, 0031, 0033, 0038 - 0044, 0051 – 0052, 0059 - 0060, 0066, 0091, 0096, 0099 – 0100, 0110; threshold compared); and in response, send an alert to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0095 – 0099, 0102, 0104, and 0110; notification).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the prior image data is obtained from a third image frame corresponding to at least a portion of the field of view of the image sensor (paragraph 0082; the selection unit 370 may complement the background image from the plurality of decoded images when generating the superimposed image; i.e., more than 2 images can be used; additionally paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: determine that a duration of the at least one occlusion is less than a threshold duration for performing occlusion removal (paragraph 0100; equal to or more than a predetermined threshold with respect to the time period; additionally paragraphs 0110).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: receive, from a user device associated with the image sensor, a request to remove the at least one occlusion (figure 13; also paragraph 0083 that superimposing the contour image processed by the processing unit 313 b on such a background image G 30; wherein image processed by the processing unit 313 b is the contour image as shown in figure 11 as discussed in at least paragraph 0075; and S30 is the reconstructed background image as shown in figure 13 G30).
Regarding claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches computer-implemented method (paragraphs 0124 - 0127) comprising: obtaining a first image frame and a second image frame corresponding to a field of view of an image sensor (figure 13 G10 and G20); identifying at least one occlusion within the second image frame based on a comparison between the first image frame and the second image frame, wherein the at least one occlusion obfuscates a portion of the field of view of the image sensor (figure 13 item G20, with region of leg); and removing the at least one occlusion from the second image frame to yield a revised second image frame, wherein the revised second image frame includes prior image data within an area corresponding to the portion of the field of view obfuscated by the at least one occlusion (figure 13 item G30).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches modifying the revised second image frame to include a transparent outline of the at least one occlusion (paragraph 0083 teaches superimposing the contour image processed by the processing unit 313 b on such a background image G 30; wherein image processed by the processing unit 313 b is the contour image as shown in figure 11 as discussed in at least paragraph 0075; and S30 is the reconstructed background image as shown in figure 13 G30).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the at least one occlusion includes at least one of precipitation, vegetation, smoke, an insect, a shadow, a droplet, a dropping, a cobweb, and an object (figures 12 – 13; person; additionally, paragraphs 0069 – 0093 and 0122, a person, animal, a vehicle, or the like).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches determining a quality score for the revised second image frame, wherein the quality score is based on at least one of a size of the at least one occlusion and a temporal metric associated with the prior image data (figures 12 – 13; comparing area and movement to determine adjustment metrics i.e. score).
Regarding claim 16, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 15, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches determining that the quality score is less than an acceptable threshold; and in response, sending an alert to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0014, 0025, 0031, 0033, 0038 - 0044, 0051 – 0052, 0059 - 0060, 0066, 0091, 0096, 0099 – 0100, 0110; threshold compared); and in response, send an alert to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0095 – 0099, 0102, 0104, and 0110; notification).
Regarding claim 17, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches sending a notification of the at least one occlusion to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0014, 0025, 0031, 0033, 0038 - 0044, 0051 – 0052, 0059 - 0060, 0066, 0091, 0096, 0099 – 0100, 0110; threshold compared); and in response, send an alert to a user device that is associated with the image sensor (paragraphs 0095 – 0099, 0102, 0104, and 0110; notification).
Regarding claim 18, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches wherein the prior image data is obtained from a third image frame corresponding to at least a portion of the field of view of the image sensor (paragraph 0082; the selection unit 370 may complement the background image from the plurality of decoded images when generating the superimposed image; i.e., more than 2 images can be used; additionally paragraph 0102).
Regarding claim 19, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches determining that a duration of the at least one occlusion is less than a threshold duration for performing occlusion removal (paragraph 0100; equal to or more than a predetermined threshold with respect to the time period; additionally paragraphs 0110).
Regarding claim 20, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by at least one computing device (paragraphs 0124 - 0127), cause the at least one computing device to perform operations comprising: obtain a first image frame and a second image frame corresponding to a field of view of an image sensor (figure 13 G10 and G20); identify at least one occlusion within the second image frame based on a comparison between the first image frame and the second image frame, wherein the at least one occlusion obfuscates a portion of the field of view of the image sensor (figure 13 item G20, with region of leg); and remove the at least one occlusion from the second image frame to yield a revised second image frame, wherein the revised second image frame includes prior image data within an area corresponding to the portion of the field of view obfuscated by the at least one occlusion (figure 13 item G30).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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:
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.
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MORITA HIROYOSHI (JP 2013-066016A; Translation provided in office action, note: the paragraph numberings cited in the rejection section correspond to the translated sections) in view of GUMMADI (US PgPub No. 2022/0116546).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, MORITA HIROYOSHI fails to clearly teach wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: adjust at least one setting associated with the image sensor in response to identifying the at least one occlusion, wherein the at least one setting includes at least one of an aperture setting, a shutter speed setting, an ISO setting, an exposure setting, and an illumination setting. GUMMADI, on the other hand teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: adjust at least one setting associated with the image sensor in response to identifying the at least one occlusion, wherein the at least one setting includes at least one of an aperture setting, a shutter speed setting, an ISO setting, an exposure setting, and an illumination setting.
More specifically, GUMMADI teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform operations comprising: adjust at least one setting associated with the image sensor in response to identifying the at least one occlusion, wherein the at least one setting includes at least one of an aperture setting, a shutter speed setting, an ISO setting, an exposure setting, and an illumination setting (figure 6 also paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0019, 0085, 0104, 0132, 0139, and 0148; correction for one of a white balance, a black level compensation, a gamma correction, a gain, a color correction, a color saturation, a noise filter, a contrast control, a brightness control, a tone mapping, a sharpness, a blurring).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of GUMMADI with the teachings of MORITA HIROYOSHI, because GUMMADI teaches in at least abstract and paragraphs 0003, 0009, 0019, 0074, 0104, 0112, 0139, and 0148 a system that can improve image quality, thereby improving imaging in MORITA HIROYOSHI.
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 11, MORITA HIROYOSHI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim.
However, MORITA HIROYOSHI fails to clearly teach adjusting at least one setting associated with the image sensor in response to identifying the at least one occlusion, wherein the at least one setting includes at least one of an aperture setting, a shutter speed setting, an ISO setting, an exposure setting, and an illumination setting. GUMMADI, on the other hand teaches adjusting at least one setting associated with the image sensor in response to identifying the at least one occlusion, wherein the at least one setting includes at least one of an aperture setting, a shutter speed setting, an ISO setting, an exposure setting, and an illumination setting.
More specifically, GUMMADI teaches adjusting at least one setting associated with the image sensor in response to identifying the at least one occlusion, wherein the at least one setting includes at least one of an aperture setting, a shutter speed setting, an ISO setting, an exposure setting, and an illumination setting (figure 6 also paragraphs 0009, 0014, 0019, 0085, 0104, 0132, 0139, and 0148; correction for one of a white balance, a black level compensation, a gamma correction, a gain, a color correction, a color saturation, a noise filter, a contrast control, a brightness control, a tone mapping, a sharpness, a blurring).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to incorporate the teachings of GUMMADI with the teachings of MORITA HIROYOSHI, because GUMMADI teaches in at least abstract and paragraphs 0003, 0009, 0019, 0074, 0104, 0112, 0139, and 0148 a system that can improve image quality, thereby improving imaging in MORITA HIROYOSHI.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lemke (US PgPub No. 20050129324) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Mino (US PgPub No. 20060061598) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Sugino (US PgPub No. 20080239092) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Mino (US Patent No. 7634106) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Nonaka (US PgPub No. 20100079491) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
LINDSKOG (US PgPub No. 20110200259) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Bourdev (US Patent No. 8041076) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
NAKAMURA (US PgPub No. 20140176764) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Li (US Patent No. 9406114) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
KAWAI (US PgPub No. 20170142343) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
He (US PgPub No. 20190286887) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
FREEMAN-POWELL (US PgPub No. 20220153195) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
TAKEHARA (US PgPub No. 20240129615) teaches a system of detecting an object and adjusting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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 on (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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
01/09/2026