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 .
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The independent claim 1 (exemplary claim for claims 8 and 15-18) recites:
1. An image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory and thereby function as:
a detection unit that detects a first part and a second part of a specific subject from an image; - Mental activity
an estimation unit that estimates a movement direction of the specific subject; - Mental activity and
an association unit that, based on the estimated movement direction, associates parts of the same subject, among the first part and the second part detected by the detection unit. – Mental activity
Step Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites the limitations of determining an association between two parts on an image. The limitations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or more processors,” nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the “one or more processors” language, the claim encompasses the user manually determining an association between two parts on an image.
This limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites one additional element:
that one or more processors is used to perform steps. The processor in steps is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. This generic processor limitation is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
The claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 11-14 fail to include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and therefore, are rejected as well.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 6-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Pub. 2019/0266392) in view of Adachi (US Pub. 2017/0104915).
With respect to claim 1, Watanabe discloses An image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory (see figure 1) and thereby function as:
a detection unit that detects a first part and a second part of a specific subject from an image, (see figure 2, numerical 231 and 232);
[an estimation unit that estimates a movement direction of the specific subject;] and
an association unit that, [based on the estimated movement direction,] associates parts of the same subject, among the first part and the second part detected by the detection unit (see figure 2, numerical 240, and paragraph 0019, wherein … the matching determination unit 240 determines whether the object detected through the first detection unit 231 corresponds to the object detected through the second detection unit 232..), as claimed.
However, Watanabe fails to disclose an estimation unit that estimates a movement direction of the specific subject; and an association unit that, based on the estimated movement direction, associates parts of the same subject, among the first part and the second part detected by the detection unit, as claimed.
Adachi teaches disclose an estimation unit that estimates a movement direction of the specific subject; and an association unit that, based on the estimated movement direction, associates parts of the same subject, among the first part and the second part detected by the detection unit, (see paragraph 0048, wherein …locus information determination unit 207 calculates a movement vector “movement direction” to a circumscribed rectangle of a human-body…; and paragraph 0044, wherein … the association between an object and a human body will be described with reference to FIGS. 4A and 4B…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of object detection using image analysis, furthermore, both references are from same assignee as well. Teaching of Adachi to detect movement direction can be incorporated in to the Watanabe system as suggested (see Abstract, wherein … based at least the detection result corrected by the correction unit), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields better monitoring system (see Adachi paragraph 0004), for motivation.
With respect to claim 2, combination of Watanabe and Adachi further discloses wherein a positional relationship between the first part and the second part can be specified by the movement direction of the specific subject, and the association unit associates the first part and the second part so as to satisfy the positional relationship specified by the estimated movement direction, (see Watanabe paragraph 0029, wherein …For example, the matching determination unit 240 can determine that the same human is detected for only the head coordinates “positional relationship” with the highest likelihood of the object being a human…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 6, combination of Watanabe and Adachi further discloses wherein the estimation unit estimates the movement direction based on a vector, among vectors indicating movement amounts for each of specific subjects each being the specific subject, which has a lowest movement amount in a vertical direction, (see Adachi paragraph 0048, wherein …locus information determination unit 207 calculates a movement vector to a circumscribed rectangle of a human-body attribute object (which is an object having an attribute of a human body) in a target image from a circumscribed rectangle of a human-body attribute object of a preceding image of the target image. Then the locus information determination unit 207 determines whether the calculated movement vector intersects with a line (a detection line) defined by the parameter setting unit 209. The determination of the intersection corresponds to a determination as to whether the human-body attribute object has passed the set line…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 7, combination of Watanabe and Adachi further discloses wherein when detecting the first part, the detection unit detects vectors indicating a position where the second part is highly probable to be present, and the association unit associates the first part for which is detected a vector, among the vectors having ending points within a search area set on the second part, which is consistent with the estimated movement direction, with the second part, (see Adachi paragraph 0048, wherein …locus information determination unit 207 calculates a movement vector to a circumscribed rectangle of a human-body attribute object (which is an object having an attribute of a human body) in a target image from a circumscribed rectangle of a human-body attribute object of a preceding image of the target image. Then the locus information determination unit 207 determines whether the calculated movement vector intersects with a line (a detection line) defined by the parameter setting unit 209. The determination of the intersection corresponds to a determination as to whether the human-body attribute object has passed the set line…), as claimed.
Claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 1, 6 and 7, because claims 8-10 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claims 1, 6 and 7, for example claim 8 scope is similar to claims 1+6; clam 9 scope is similar to claims 1+6+7; and claim 10 scope is similar to claims 1+6+7.
With respect to claim 11, combination of Watanabe and Adachi further discloses wherein the detection unit executes detection of the first part and detection of the second part separately, (see Watanabe figure 2, numerical 231 and 232 “detection unit executes detection of the first part and detection of the second part separately”), as claimed.
With respect to claim 12, combination of Watanabe and Adachi discloses all the limitations as claimed and as rejected in claim 1, above. However, they fail to disclose wherein the detection unit detects the first part and the second part using a neural network in which is set dictionary data containing a combination of a type of the specific subject and a part to be detected, as claimed.
But, it is well known “Official Notice” in the art to use a neural network for detecting objects in a image (see US Pub. 2023/0386253, paragraph 0047). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to simply utilize the conventional knowledge of using neural networks to attain the objects in an image in the Watanabe and Adachi’s system to yields better and more accurate monitoring system, for motivation.
With respect to claim 13, combination of Watanabe and Adachi further discloses wherein the specific subject is a human or an animal, (see Watanabe paragraph 0017, wherein …to detect a region presenting a characteristic shape of a human body…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 14, combination of Watanabe and Adachi further discloses wherein the first part is a trunk and the second part is a head, (see Watanabe figure 6, head and body of a person read as trunk “body” and head), as claimed.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 1, because claims 15 and 17 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claim 8, because claims 16 and 18 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 8.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (US Pub. 2019/0266392) in view of Adachi (US Pub. 2017/0104915) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Baba (JP 2017212581, IDS document).
With respect to claim 3, combination of Watanabe and Adachi discloses all the limitations as claimed and rejected in claim 1 above. However, they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the association unit associates the first part and the second part which satisfy the positional relationship specified by the estimated movement direction, and which are at a distance less than a threshold, as claimed.
Baba teaches wherein the association unit associates the first part and the second part which satisfy the positional relationship specified by the estimated movement direction, and which are at a distance less than a threshold, (see page 6 of translation, wherein …The associating unit 308 determines whether or not to associate the specific object region with the target object region according to the associating condition relating to the positional relationship between the target object region and the specific object region…; and …first condition is that the state in which the distance between the target object region and the specific object region is less than the distance threshold is continued during the determination period…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of object detection using image analysis. Teaching of Baba to setup the conditions for the associating the two regions can be incorporated into the Watanabe and Adachi system as suggested (see Watanabe Abstract, wherein … based at least the detection result), for suggestion, and modifying the system yields better tracing object (see Baba page 2 translation Technical filed), for motivation.
With respect to claims 4 and 5, combination of Watanabe, Adachi and Baba for the same reasons of combining further discloses wherein when the estimation unit cannot estimate the movement direction, the association unit associates the first part and the second part which are at a distance less than a threshold; and wherein when the estimation unit cannot estimate the movement direction, the association unit skips associating the second part with the first part for which a plurality of the second parts at a distance less than the threshold are present, (see Baba translation page 6, detail for the second condition, also page 7 second paragraph), as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights