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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/19/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process performed using generic computer elements. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements are not significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims recite generic computer elements, a generically claimed “memory device” which could be any kind of memory device, a “processor” which is a generic claiming of computer processors, an “image sensor” which is another generic computer element that is a device capable of acquiring images, and a “display” which is another generic computer element.
In regards to claim 1, an image processing apparatus comprising: a memory device that stores a set of instructions; and at least one processor that executes the set of instructions (A person of ordinary skill in the art can store a set of instruction and could execute a set of instructions) to acquire an image output from an image sensor (A person of ordinary skill can receive an image from a sensor, this is mere data-gathering); detect objects of different types (A person of ordinary skill can detect and identify objects of different types); determine an object as a main object based on a result of the detection (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine which objects are the main objects, and which objects are not the main objects as this is a form of judgement or determination); and track the object determined as the main object wherein, while the object being tracked is continuously detected (A person of ordinary skill in the art can track an object of some sort continuously and keep it continuously detected), when a current frame includes an object of a type different from a type of the object being tracked, whether or not to change a type corresponding to the main object is determined in accordance with a predetermined criterion, the type corresponding to the main object is changed if the predetermined criterion is satisfied, and the type corresponding to the main object not changed if the predetermined criteria is not satisfied (A person of ordinary skill in the art can reevaluate which object should be the main object based on additional information, predetermined or otherwise, or objects being tracked), and wherein the determination of whether or not to change the type corresponding to the main object is performed in a case where the object of the different type is determined to belong to a same object region as the object being tracked (A person of ordinary skill in the art can identify if two objects are in the same region or general area of each other and make redeterminations based on such).
In regards to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor that executes the set of instructions to further control a display configured to display the image (A person of ordinary skill can display an image by showing off an image to other people), wherein the display is controlled to display information indicating the object being tracked while superimposing the information on the image (A person of ordinary skill in the art can control the display of an image by choosing whether or not to display it, and a person can further display information on the object being tracked and further impose that on the image or over the image).
In regards to claim 3, wherein, in the state where the object being tracked is continuously detected, in the case where the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is detected in addition to the object being tracked, an evaluation value of each of the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is calculated (A person of ordinary skill can deal with multiple objects being included within an image with multiple types along with assigning specific values to each type of object), and wherein, in a case where the evaluation value of the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is larger than the evaluation value of the object being tracked by a predetermined value, the type corresponding to the main object is changed (A person of ordinary skill in the art can compare two numbers and see which one is bigger and then use that information to potentially change their determination of what the main unit is).
In regards to claim 4, wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on parameters including at least one of a detection size, a detection position, detection reliability, detection frequency, and a number of detected parts (A person of ordinary skill can have a value based on at least one of these values, and if only value needs to be used, the singular value could be equivalent to the evaluation value).
In regards to claim 5, wherein the evaluation value increases with a decreasing distance between the detection position and a center of the image or a focus adjustment region set by a user (A person of ordinary skill in the art can increase a value as the distance decreases between two positions).
In regards to claim 6, wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on the detection size that is subjected to weighting in consideration of a relative size difference between the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine a value based on the relative sizes of various objects and their respective types).
In regards to claim 7, wherein the evaluation value increases as the detection reliability increases (A person of ordinary skill can increase a value while the reliability increases).
In regards to claim 8, wherein the evaluation value increases as the detection frequency increases (A person of ordinary skill in the art can increase the value as the frequency increases).
In regards to claim 9, wherein the evaluation value increases as the number of detected parts increases (A person of ordinary skill in the art can increase the value as the number of parts increases).
In regards to claim 10, wherein at least two of a person, an animal, and a vehicle are detected as the objects of the different types (A person of ordinary skill in the art can detect multiple people, animals, and vehicles and use those classifications as the different types).
In regards to claim 11, it is similar to claim 1, and it is similarly rejected as the image sensor is virtually the same as the image sensor claimed in claim 1.
In regards to claim 12, wherein, in the state where the object being tracked is continuously detected, in the case where the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is detected in addition to the object being tracked, an evaluation value of each of the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is calculated(A person of ordinary skill can deal with multiple objects being included within an image with multiple types along with assigning specific values to each type of object), wherein, in a case where the evaluation value of the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is larger than the evaluation value of the object being tracked by a predetermined value, the type corresponding to the main object is changed, and wherein, in a state where an imaging preparation operation of a user is received (A person of ordinary skill in the art can compare two numbers and see which one is bigger and then use that information to potentially change their determination of what the main unit is), the evaluation value is calculated based on parameters including at least one of detection reliability, detection frequency, and a number of detected parts ((A person of ordinary skill can have a value based on at least one of these values, and if only value needs to be used, the singular value could be equivalent to the evaluation value).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
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 (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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 20210258495 A1).
Claims 1-2, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ito et al. (US 20210258495 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ito.
The applied reference has a common applicant with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
In regards to claim 1, Ito discloses An image processing apparatus comprising: a memory device that stores a set of instructions; and at least one processor that executes the set of instructions to (Paragraphs 34 and 24 and 26-27, These paragraphs describe the usage of a processor in paragraph 34 and the usage of a memory control circuit and memory is disclosed in paragraphs 24 and 26-27): acquire an image output from an image sensor (Paragraph 20, Describes the usage of a camera, a type of image sensor, that can acquire images); detect objects of different types (Paragraphs 28-30, The description of the detection unit which detects objects in paragraph 28 with the following paragraphs going into further detail); determine an object as a main object based on a result of the detection (Paragraphs 48 and 50-51, Describes a determination of a main object); and track the object determined as the main object, wherein, while the object being tracked is continuously detected, when a current frame includes an object of a type different from a type of the object being tracked, whether or not to change a type corresponding to the main object is determined in accordance with a predetermined criterion (Paragraphs 61, 46, and 1, and the title, Paragraph 61 discloses the continuous detection while tracking with paragraph 1 and the title disclose tracking subjects with 46 disclosing the tracking of a specific subject), the type corresponding to the main object is changed if the predetermined criterion is satisfied, and the type corresponding to the main object not changed if the predetermined criterion is not satisfied (Paragraphs 51 and 129-137, Paragraph 51 gives a broad overview of the switching of subjects with paragraphs 129-137 covering the specific details), and wherein the determination of whether or not to change the type corresponding to the main object is performed in a case where the object of the different type is determined to belong to a same object region as the object being tracked (Paragraphs 29 and 33, Paragraph 29 discloses that the features detected can include the face and body along with associated organs such as the nose, pupils, and so on. These organs are within the same region as the broader body or face when the determinations are made).
In regards to claim 2, Ito discloses wherein the at least one processor that executes the set of instructions to further control a display configured to display the image (Paragraphs 57-59, The display unit is included and displays an image or images as output), wherein the display is controlled to display information indicating the object being tracked while superimposing the information on the image (Paragraphs 57-59, The display unit is included and displays an image or images as output where 58 discloses that the display can include captured image data while 59 discloses a control system that can turn the display on and off which would read upon the control unit).
In regards to claim 10, Ito discloses wherein at least two of a person, an animal, and a vehicle are detected as the objects of the different types (Paragraphs 37 and 124, Paragraph 37 discloses the ability to detect multiple animal types and multiple types of vehicles while paragraph 124 further includes people but allows for multiple by the phrase at least one which would include any value over 1).
In regards to claim 11, Ito discloses an image sensor configured to output an image; and the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 (Paragraphs 20, 23, and 57-59, The display unit is included and displays an image or images as output and paragraphs 20 and 23, since the image sensor of claim 1 has been further defined the CMOS sensor and camera would cover that embodiment of an image sensor).
In regards to claims 13 and 14, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
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 (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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4, 6-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 20210258495 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ito in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20230215034 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamazaki.
In regards to claim 3, Ito does not explicitly disclose wherein, in the state where the object being tracked is continuously, in the case where the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is detected in addition to the object being tracked, an evaluation value of each of the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is calculated, and wherein, in a case where the evaluation value of the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is larger than the evaluation value of the object being tracked by a predetermined value, the type corresponding to the main object is changed.
However, Yamazaki does disclose wherein, in the state where the object being tracked is continuously, in the case where the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is detected in addition to the object being tracked, an evaluation value of each of the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is calculated (Paragraphs 6 and 42-43, Paragraph 6 discloses that a plurality of types of subjects are tracked and paragraphs 42-43 discloses the usage of evaluation values), and wherein, in a case where the evaluation value of the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is larger than the evaluation value of the object being tracked by a predetermined value, the type corresponding to the main object is changed (Paragraphs 78, 43, and 49, Paragraphs 43 and 49 cite the usage of evaluation values and paragraph 78 discloses the usage of a value used for evaluating the type of the object having to overcome a threshold to determine whether the type was accurate or not).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of the two disclosures as the inclusion of an evaluation value that is being used for determination would lead to a predictable increase in the ability to redetermine values. As the mechanism comes with preassigned thresholds, it allows for a system to course correct in real time which would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy. As such, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these disclosures.
In regards to claim 4, Ito does not explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on parameters including at least one of a detection size, a detection position, detection reliability, detection frequency, and a number of detected parts.
However, Yamazaki discloses wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on parameters including at least one of a detection size, a detection position, detection reliability, detection frequency, and a number of detected parts (Paragraphs 78 and 57, Paragraph 78 discloses the use of the detection size or subject size and paragraph 57 further discloses that the position, reliability, and the number of detected areas is included with the detection results).
In regards to claim 6, Yamazaki does disclose wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on the detection size that is subjected to weighting in consideration of a relative size difference between the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked (Paragraphs 78 and 94, Paragraph 78 compares subjects of their relative size compared to a threshold and paragraph 94 discloses weighting with a value which could be reasonably interchanged for a reliable result).
In regards to claim 7, Yamazaki does disclose wherein the evaluation value increases as the detection reliability increases (Paragraphs 57 and 59, The determination is done via the detection reliability to determine the object as such, there is a reason to allow that as reliability of the detection increases that the determination’s value would also increase).
In regards to claim 9, Yamazaki does disclose wherein the evaluation value increases as the number of detected parts increases (Paragraphs 57 and 59, The determination is done via the number of objects for determination as such, there is a reason to allow that as object number increases that the determination’s value would also increase).
In regards to claim 12, Ito does not explicitly disclose any of the limitations of this claim.
However, Yamazaki does disclose wherein, in the state where the object being tracked is continuously detected, in the case where the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is detected in addition to the object being tracked, an evaluation value of each of the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is calculated (Paragraphs 6 and 42-43, Paragraph 6 discloses that a plurality of types of subjects are tracked and paragraphs 42-43 discloses the usage of evaluation values), wherein, in a case where the evaluation value of the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked is larger than the evaluation value of the object being tracked by a predetermined value, the type corresponding to the main object is changed, and wherein, in a state where an imaging preparation operation of a user is received, the evaluation value is calculated based on parameters including at least one of detection reliability, detection frequency, and a number of detected parts (Paragraphs 78 and 43 and 49, Paragraphs 43 and 49 cite the usage of evaluation values and paragraph 78 discloses the usage of a value used for evaluating the type of the object having to overcome a threshold to determine whether the type was accurate or not and discloses the use of the detection size or subject size and paragraph 57 further discloses that the position, reliability, and the number of detected areas is included with the detection results).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 20210258495 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ito in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20230215034 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamazaki, as applied to claims 3-4, 7, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Odagiri et al. (US 20210065365 A1), hereinafter referred to as Odagiri.
In regards to claim 5, neither Yamazaki or Ito explicitly disclose wherein the evaluation value increases with a decreasing distance between the detection position and a center of the image or a focus adjustment region set by a user.
However, Odagiri discloses wherein the evaluation value increases with a decreasing distance between the detection position and a center of the image or a focus adjustment region set by a user (Paragraph 95, Odagiri provides that the evaluation value of a region increases while the distance decreases between a probe and the regions which would means that a simple substitution of the probe for the center of the image as a region or the region specified by the user could similarly accomplish this effect).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these disclosures as factoring in the decreasing distance would have led to a predictable increase in accuracy. The closer something is makes it usually much more identifiable particularly in the context of animals, people, or vehicles. As such, having the distance be a positive factor for the evaluation factor would have been prima facie obvious.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al. (US 20210258495 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ito in view of Yamazaki et al. (US 20230215034 A1), hereinafter referred to as Yamazaki, as applied to claims 3-4, 7, 9, and 12 above, and further in view of Ruhr et al. (CN 117203403 A), hereinafter referred to Ruhr.
In regards to claim 8, neither Ito nor Yamazaki disclose wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on the detection size that is subjected to weighting in consideration of a relative size difference between the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked.
However, Ruhr does disclose wherein the evaluation value is calculated based on the detection size that is subjected to weighting in consideration of a relative size difference between the object being tracked and the object of the type different from the type of the object being tracked (6th new paragraph of page 13, Ruhr describes that the change in detection frequency and object’s detection rate are aggregated and used to calculate the result where an increase in detection frequency would imply an increase in the aggregation).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine these disclosures. As including the detection frequency in the aggregation would lead to a predictable increase in accuracy. The more times an object has been detected would allow for more opportunities to identify it accurately as it has been exposed to the system more and more frequently as such, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine these two disclosures.
Response to Amendment
The amendment, entered 4/30/2026, has been entered and considered in full. The amendment overcomes all specification objections regarding the title. However, after further consideration, the newly added language does not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant simply states that the amended language amounts to significantly more for the 101 argument, and they do not provide any further arguments on the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments. This argument is not persuasive. The arguments against the 102 rejection state that the newly added claim language is not disclosed in Ito et al. (US 20210258495 A1), hereinafter referred to as Ito. Ito discloses that some of the areas that can be detected and later tracked as in paragraphs 29 and 33 where specific facial organs can be detected and later tracked along with the face and body of a person. As such, Ito does read upon the claimed language. Applicant further argues that Ito is not directed to a real-time revaluation, but rather to resetting the after the object becomes undetectable or after the tracking continuation time has elapsed. Applicant’s argument seemingly conflates the continuous detection with the concept of continuous tracking. The claim language as written, “and track the object determined as the main object, wherein, while the object being tracked is continuously detected,” only requires continuous detection while the object is being tracked. The continuation time recited by Ito simply stops the tracking of the target, and as such, continuous detection would not be required. Although, Ito would further detect the target as Ito’s detection system is not reliant on the continuation time or the tracking system. As such this argument is not persuasive. The argument against Yamazaki is not applicable since Yamazaki is not relied upon for the claim limitation, but as the argument seems related to the rationale for Ito, it will be addressed specifically. Applicant argues against Yamazaki by claiming that while Yamazaki does determine whether a piece if part of the “same subject”, it does not impose that as a condition for determining if a change is necessary. While Yamazaki may not require this condition, Yamazaki still discloses that the type change is performed in such situations regardless, and it would be necessary in cases where the newly tracked target is a subcomponent of a larger target such as pupils or the face. As such, this argument is not persuasive. Arguments are made against Odagiri and Ruhr, as they are not relied upon or related to the rejection, these arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/GREGORY A MORSE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights