DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on October 25, 2023.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN202210926421.1, filed on August 03, 2022.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 1 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process (a series of steps or
acts), and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the limitations:
determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images; and
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitation in (a) be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determining step, a human can read image detection algorithm indication information stored in the database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images;
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
The additional element (3) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional element recites only the idea of separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms without details on how it is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (1) and (2) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images;
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
The additional elements (1) and (2) simply append well-understood, routines, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that they are well-understood, routines, and conventional in the computing art to gathering input signals to simulate human inputs. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (4) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the executing, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more for at least the reasons stated above.
Claim 2 recites the limitation:
(a) for the images, querying a parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images; and
(b) executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images based on the operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the parameter configuration file comprises operation parameters corresponding to different detection functions of different image detection algorithms, wherein the operation parameters corresponding to the detection functions comprise operation parameters of different detection actions in the detection functions, and
(b) wherein querying the parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images comprises:
(c) querying the parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain an operation parameter, in the parameter configuration file, that corresponds to at least one detection function in the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, wherein the operation parameter corresponding to the detection function comprises an operation parameter of at least one detection action in the detection function.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 4 recites the limitation:
(a) receiving a first parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the first parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust an operation parameter of a target image detection algorithm corresponding to a target image; and
(b) updating the parameter configuration file based on an adjusted operation parameter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 5 recites the limitation:
(a) re-executing the target image detection algorithm for the target image based on the adjusted operation parameter to obtain first debug detection result information; and
(b) when the first debug detection result information meets a preset condition, performing the step of updating the parameter configuration file based on an adjusted operation parameter.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 6 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the detection result information comprises error prompt information, and the error prompt information is used to indicate to modify and debug an operation parameter of a target image detection algorithm corresponding to the error prompt information.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 7 recites the limitation:
(a) receiving a second parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the second parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust a region of interest (ROI) parameter corresponding to the target image; and
(b) re-executing, for the target image based on an adjusted ROI parameter, the target image detection algorithm corresponding to the target image to obtain second debug detection result information.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 8 recites the limitation:
(a) when the corresponding image detection algorithms are separately executed for the images, obtaining the image indication information of the images and the algorithm indication information corresponding to the images; and
(b) generating the debug file based on the image indication information of the images and the algorithm indication information corresponding to the images.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 9 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the algorithm indication information comprises an algorithm identifier, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises:
(b) querying a correspondence between an algorithm identifier and a detection algorithm based on algorithm identifiers of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim 10 recites the limitation:
(a) wherein the algorithm indication information comprises capturing source information, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises:
(b) querying a correspondence between an image capturing source and a detection algorithm based on capturing source information of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
These claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the judicial exception deficiencies of Claim 1.
Claims 2-5 and 7-10 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are mere data gathering/transmitting/outputting recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activities (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 6 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular field of use, and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea. (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)).
Claims 9 and 10 recite further additional elements that fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they are merely adding descriptions to mental process components, and thus they fail to integrated into practical applications and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Claims 2, 5 and 7 recite further additional elements fail to meaningfully limit the claim because they do not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), and fail to integrated into practical application and they do not amount to significant more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, Claims 2-10 do not add any steps or additional elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert Claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-10 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significant more.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 11 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 11 is directed to a device, which is a system or apparatus, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 11 recites the limitations:
determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images; and
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
a processor and a memory,
wherein the memory is configure to store a computer program, which, when executed by the processor, causes the device to perform a process for debugging an image detection algorithm that comprises:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitation in (a) be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determining step, a human can read image detection algorithm indication information stored in the database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
a processor and a memory,
wherein the memory is configure to store a computer program, which, when executed by the processor, causes the device to perform a process for debugging an image detection algorithm that comprises:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
The additional elements (1) and (2) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The processor and the memory are used as tools to perform the obtaining, determining and executing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (5) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional element recites only the idea of separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms without details on how it is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (3) and (4) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
a processor and a memory,
wherein the memory is configure to store a computer program, which, when executed by the processor, causes the device to perform a process for debugging an image detection algorithm that comprises:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
The additional elements (1) and (2) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (3) and (4) simply append well-understood, routines, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that they are well-understood, routines, and conventional in the computing art to gathering input signals to simulate human inputs. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (5) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the executing, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
<<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>> + <<>>
Claim Interpretation: Under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the limitations of Claim 12 are presumed to have their plain meaning consistent with the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2111.
Step 1: Claim 12 is directed to computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which is an article of manufacture, and falls within one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 12 recites the limitations:
determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images; and
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, other than reciting:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon for execution by a processor, wherein the computer program comprises instructions for:
These recited steps, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), cover performance of the steps in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. That is, the limitation in (a) be reasonably interpreted as mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind alone using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, the limitation (a) for the determining step, a human can read image detection algorithm indication information stored in the database using observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion to determine the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon for execution by a processor, wherein the computer program comprises instructions for:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
The additional element (1) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium used as tools to perform the obtaining, determining and executing steps of the claim. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (4) fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and is, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The additional element recites only the idea of separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms without details on how it is accomplished. The claim omits any details as to how separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms solves a technical problem, and instead recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The additional element (2) and (3) are mere data gathering/transmitting recited at a high level of generality, and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Furthermore, all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering/transmitting and, as such, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on the claim. The additional elements amount to necessary data gathering/transmitting. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Accordingly, even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as a combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claim recites the additional elements:
A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program thereon for execution by a processor, wherein the computer program comprises instructions for:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images.
The additional element (1) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The additional elements (2) and (3) simply append well-understood, routines, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) expressly states that the courts have recognized the computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data as well‐understood, routine, and conventional computer functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily comprehend that they are well-understood, routines, and conventional in the computing art to gathering input signals to simulate human inputs. Therefore, the limitation remains insignificant extra-solution activities even upon reconsideration and does not amount to significantly more.
The additional element (4) does not require any particular application of the judicial exception and are, at best, the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) to the judicial exception. The analysis under Step 2A, Prong Two is carried through to Step 2B. Therefore, the additional elements attempt to cover any solution to separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms with no restriction on how the executing is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the executing, and does not provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it.”
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as a combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using generic computer components, insignificant extra-solution activities and only the idea of a solution or outcome, and therefore do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
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:
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, 4, 8, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20040169883 (hereinafter “Eichhorn”) in view of US 20220197778 (hereinafter “Souders”).
As per Claim 1, Eichhorn discloses:
A method for debugging an image detection algorithm, comprising:
[…] image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images (Paragraph [0021], “The system comprises an algorithm server that executes image processing instructions (referred to herein as "algorithms," "routines," and "subroutines") on virtual slide images or sub-regions of a virtual slide image. (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0023], “The algorithm server is configured with a data storage area 40 and a plurality of local image files 30.The data storage area preferably comprises information related to the processing of digital image files, for example it may store certain analysis routines, parameters, and procedural lists of analysis routines and associated parameters ("macros"), among other types of data [[…] image indication information of a plurality of images and algorithm indication information of the images] (emphasis added).”;
obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images ([Abstract], “A system and method for processing and analyzing virtual microscopy digital images ("virtual slides") is provided. (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [obtaining the images based on the image indication information of the images, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images] (emphasis added).”; and
separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0011], “The algorithm server additionally has access to a plurality of virtual slides. The algorithm server executes a selected routine on an identified virtual slide and provides the resulting data (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0031], “The reporting manager 140 is preferably configured to receive output and processing results from the execution manager 100 as an algorithm executes and generates data or other output [separately executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”.
Eichhorn does not disclose:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises […]
However, Souders discloses:
obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises […] ([Abstract], “A core dump file corresponding to the crash event associated with the executing of the executable code component and a debug data file that includes symbol table information to debug the blocks of the original source code are received [obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises […]] (emphasis added).”;
Eichhorn is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system and method for processing and analyzing virtual microscopy digital images ("virtual slides"). Souders is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method, system, or apparatus to debug software that is reorganized in memory. Thus, Eichhorn and Souders are analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Souders into the teaching of Eichhorn to include “obtaining a debug file, wherein the debug file comprises […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the debugging process by allowing debug parameters to be updated (Souders, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Eichhorn further discloses:
for the images, querying a parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0034], “Advantageously, the execution manager may query the algorithm or check a corresponding data file to determine what parameter data will be required to run the algorithm(s) (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [for the images, querying a parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”; and
executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images based on the operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0034], “Finally, in step 230, after the image has been selected and the algorithm selected and the parameter data provided, the execution manager runs the algorithm and preferably provides any output to an output file, the screen, a database, or other display or storage facility [executing the corresponding image detection algorithms for the images based on the operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain detection result information corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”.
As per Claim 4 the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Eichhorn further discloses:
[…] an operation parameter of a target image detection algorithm corresponding to a target image (Paragraph [0034], “Advantageously, the execution manager may query the algorithm or check a corresponding data file to determine what parameter data will be required to run the algorithm(s) (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [[…] an operation parameter of a target image detection algorithm corresponding to a target image] (emphasis added).”; and
the parameter configuration file (Paragraph [0034], “Advantageously, the execution manager may query the algorithm or check a corresponding data file to determine what parameter data will be required to run the algorithm(s) [the parameter configuration file] (emphasis added).”;
Eichhorn does not explicitly disclose:
receiving a first parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the first parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust […]
updating […] based on an adjusted operation parameter.
However, Souders discloses:
receiving a first parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the first parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust […] (Paragraph [0051], “In the case where the user has requested updated debug information by setting the environment variable, libLFR creates (step 438) an in-memory object file with symbols corresponding to the new structure (e.g., the randomly reorganized memory layout) of the transformed binary (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0070], “In some embodiments, the LFR debug data file 348 is received through the command line and saved to a storage medium [receiving a first parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the first parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust […]] (emphasis added).”;
updating […] based on an adjusted operation parameter (Paragraph [0024], “By creating an in-memory object file with updated debug data or otherwise updating an original debug file, disclosed embodiments can facilitate validation and development of the program [updating […] based on an adjusted operation parameter] (emphasis added).”.
Souders is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method, system, or apparatus to debug software that is reorganized in memory. Thus, Souders is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Souders into the teaching of Eichhorn to include “receiving a first parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the first parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust […]; updating […] based on an adjusted operation parameter.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the debugging process by allowing debug parameters to be updated (Souders, paragraph [0045]).
As per Claim 8 the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Eichhorn further discloses:
when the corresponding image detection algorithms are separately executed for the images, obtaining the image indication information of the images and the algorithm indication information corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0011], “The algorithm server additionally has access to a plurality of virtual slides. The algorithm server executes a selected routine on an identified virtual slide and provides the resulting data (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [when the corresponding image detection algorithms are separately executed for the images, obtaining the image indication information of the images and the algorithm indication information corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”; and
[…] the image indication information of the images and the algorithm indication information corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [[…] the image indication information of the images and the algorithm indication information corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”.
Eichhorn does not explicitly disclose:
generating the debug file […]
However, Souders discloses:
generating the debug file […] ([Abstract], “An updated debug data file is generated that includes symbol table information corresponding to the randomly reorganized layout. A debugger program is called with the executable code component, the core dump file, and the updated debug data file [generating the debug file […]] (emphasis added).”;
Souders is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method, system, or apparatus to debug software that is reorganized in memory. Thus, Souders is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Souders into the teaching of Eichhorn to include “generating the debug file […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the debugging process by allowing debug parameters to be updated (Souders, paragraph [0045]).
Claims 11 is a device claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1.
Claims 12 is a computer program product claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 1). Therefore, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of Souders as applied to claim 2, and further in view of US 20120314129 (hereinafter “Mertens”).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated; and Eichhorn further discloses:
wherein the parameter configuration file comprises operation parameters corresponding to […] (Paragraph [0034], “Advantageously, the execution manager may query the algorithm or check a corresponding data file to determine what parameter data will be required to run the algorithm(s) [wherein the parameter configuration file comprises operation parameters corresponding to […]] (emphasis added).”, and
wherein querying the parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images comprises (Paragraph [0034], “Advantageously, the execution manager may query the algorithm or check a corresponding data file to determine what parameter data will be required to run the algorithm(s) (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [wherein querying the parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain operation parameters of the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images comprises] (emphasis added).”:
querying the parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain an operation parameter, in the parameter configuration file, that corresponds to […] (Paragraph [0034], “Advantageously, the execution manager may query the algorithm or check a corresponding data file to determine what parameter data will be required to run the algorithm(s) (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [querying the parameter configuration file based on the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, to obtain an operation parameter, in the parameter configuration file, that corresponds to […]] (emphasis added).”.
but the combination of Eichhorn and Souders does not explicitly disclose:
[…] different detection functions of different image detection algorithms, wherein the operation parameters corresponding to the detection functions comprise operation parameters of different detection actions in the detection functions,
[…] at least one detection function in the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, wherein the operation parameter corresponding to the detection function comprises an operation parameter of at least one detection action in the detection function.
However, Mertens discloses:
[…] different detection functions of different image detection algorithms, wherein the operation parameters corresponding to the detection functions comprise operation parameters of different detection actions in the detection functions (Paragraph [0036], “So parameters specifying the rendering on the receiving display (i.e. typically the image processing algorithms it will perform) can be of various types, including actual parameters for mathematical image processing functions, but also e.g. parameters encoding a rough approximation shape specified with line segments 250 into which a curve should fall, e.g. a reflection profile as in FIG. 2 (leaving some room for different processing to the receiving display, but not too much) [[…] different detection functions of different image detection algorithms, wherein the operation parameters corresponding to the detection functions comprise operation parameters of different detection actions in the detection functions] (emphasis added).”,
[…] at least one detection function in the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, wherein the operation parameter corresponding to the detection function comprises an operation parameter of at least one detection action in the detection function (Paragraph [0036], “So parameters specifying the rendering on the receiving display (i.e. typically the image processing algorithms it will perform) can be of various types, including actual parameters for mathematical image processing functions, but also e.g. parameters encoding a rough approximation shape specified with line segments 250 into which a curve should fall, e.g. a reflection profile as in FIG. 2 (leaving some room for different processing to the receiving display, but not too much) [[…] at least one detection function in the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, wherein the operation parameter corresponding to the detection function comprises an operation parameter of at least one detection action in the detection function] (emphasis added).”.
Mertens is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method of adding image defining information to an input image signal. Thus, Mertens is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Mertens into the combined teachings of Eichhorn and Souders to include “[…] different detection functions of different image detection algorithms, wherein the operation parameters corresponding to the detection functions comprise operation parameters of different detection actions in the detection functions, […] at least one detection function in the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images, wherein the operation parameter corresponding to the detection function comprises an operation parameter of at least one detection action in the detection function.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the intelligent pre-analysis process by adding functions or action to the image analysis algorithm (Mertens, paragraph [0038]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of Souders as applied to claim 4, and further in view of US 8965104 (hereinafter “Hickman”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 4 is incorporated; and Eichhorn further discloses:
re-executing the target image detection algorithm for the target image based on […] (Paragraph [0011], “The algorithm server additionally has access to a plurality of virtual slides. The algorithm server executes a selected routine on an identified virtual slide and provides the resulting data [re-executing the target image detection algorithm for the target image based on […]] (emphasis added).”.
Eichhorn does not explicitly discloses:
[…] the adjusted operation parameter to obtain first debug detection result information; and
when the first debug detection result information meets a preset condition, performing the step of updating the parameter configuration file based on an adjusted operation parameter.
However, Souders discloses:
[…] the adjusted operation parameter to obtain first debug detection result information (Paragraph [0024], “By creating an in-memory object file with updated debug data or otherwise updating an original debug file, disclosed embodiments can facilitate validation and development of the program (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0069], “LFR debug conversion function 346 generates an updated debug data file (named LFR debug data file 348) using (a) the symbol table information in the debug data component in step 2 [[…] the adjusted operation parameter to obtain first debug detection result information] (emphasis added).”; and
when the first debug detection result information […], performing the step of updating the parameter configuration file based on an adjusted operation parameter (Paragraph [0024], “By creating an in-memory object file with updated debug data or otherwise updating an original debug file, disclosed embodiments can facilitate validation and development of the program (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0069], “LFR debug conversion function 346 generates an updated debug data file (named LFR debug data file 348) using (a) the symbol table information in the debug data component in step 2 [when the first debug detection result information […], performing the step of updating the parameter configuration file based on an adjusted operation parameter] (emphasis added).”.
Souders is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method, system, or apparatus to debug software that is reorganized in memory. Thus, Souders is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Souders into the teaching of Eichhorn to include “[…] the adjusted operation parameter to obtain first debug detection result information; and when the first debug detection result information […], performing the step of updating the parameter configuration file based on an adjusted operation parameter.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the debugging process by allowing debug parameters to be updated (Souders, paragraph [0045]).
However, Hickman discloses:
[…] meets a preset condition […] (col.17 lines 24-29, “For example, any set of one or more of the following conditions could be sufficient to trigger the process of obtaining an sending new image data (perhaps along with additional data) to the cloud processing system 302 for selecting a new parameter set or a new algorithm and parameter set [[…] meets a preset condition […]] (emphasis added).”
Hickman is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding cloud computing refers to the provision of computing resources via a computer network. Thus, Hickman is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hickman into the combined teachings of Eichhorn and Souders to include “[…] meets a preset condition […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to reduce the computation time by adding conditions to update the parameters ( Hickman, col.19 lines 54-58).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of Souders as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20040093537 (hereinafter “Thompson”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Eichhorn discloses “where the detection result information comprises” and “an operation parameter of a target image detection algorithm corresponding to” but the combination Eichhorn and Souders does not explicitly discloses:
[…] error prompt information, and the error prompt information is used to indicate to modify and debug […] the error prompt information
However, Thompson discloses:
[…] error prompt information, and the error prompt information is used to indicate to modify and debug […] the error prompt information (Paragraph [0013], “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating exemplary components in a computer system configured in accordance with the present system. As shown in FIG. 1, memory 100 in the computer system includes a main program 101, including debugging code 110 that creates a debug text file 103 used by parser program 102, to generate an internal parser output table 107 and error message text 104, as explained in detail below [[…] error prompt information, and the error prompt information is used to indicate to modify and debug […] the error prompt information] (emphasis added).”;
Thompson is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system for indicating attempts by a computer program to free memory that is not currently allocated. Thus, Thompson is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Thompson into the combined teachings of Souders and Eichhorn to include “[…] error prompt information, and the error prompt information is used to indicate to modify and debug […] the error prompt information” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enables the debugging code to output debug error messages (Thompson, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of Souders as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20190228253 (hereinafter “Ramaswamy”).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Eichhorn discloses further discloses:
[…] the target image ([Abstract], “A system and method for processing and analyzing virtual microscopy digital images ("virtual slides") is provided. (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0038], “Upon receipt of the request, in step 460, the execution manager parses the request to obtain information such as the particular algorithm to run, the identification of the virtual slide (and optionally the sub-region thereof), as well as the parameter data [[…] the target image] (emphasis added).”; and
re-executing, for the target image based on […], the target image detection algorithm corresponding to the target image to […] (Paragraph [0011], “The algorithm server additionally has access to a plurality of virtual slides. The algorithm server executes a selected routine on an identified virtual slide and provides the resulting data [re-executing, for the target image based on […], the target image detection algorithm corresponding to the target image to […]] (emphasis added).”;
Eichhorn does not explicitly discloses:
receiving a second parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the second parameter adjustment instruction is used to request to adjust a region of interest (ROI) parameter corresponding to […]
[…] an adjusted ROI parameter […] obtain second debug detection result information.
However, Souders discloses:
receiving a second parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the second parameter adjustment instruction is used to […] (Paragraph [0051], “In the case where the user has requested updated debug information by setting the environment variable, libLFR creates (step 438) an in-memory object file with symbols corresponding to the new structure (e.g., the randomly reorganized memory layout) of the transformed binary (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0070], “In some embodiments, the LFR debug data file 348 is received through the command line and saved to a storage medium [receiving a second parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the second parameter adjustment instruction is used to […]] (emphasis added).”;
[…] obtain second debug detection result information (Paragraph [0024], “By creating an in-memory object file with updated debug data or otherwise updating an original debug file, disclosed embodiments can facilitate validation and development of the program (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0069], “LFR debug conversion function 346 generates an updated debug data file (named LFR debug data file 348) using (a) the symbol table information in the debug data component in step 2 [[…] obtain second debug detection result information] (emphasis added).”.
Souders is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method, system, or apparatus to debug software that is reorganized in memory. Thus, Souders is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Souders into the teaching of Eichhorn to include “receiving a second parameter adjustment instruction, wherein the second parameter adjustment instruction is used to […]; […] obtain second debug detection result information” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the debugging process by allowing debug parameters to be updated (Souders, paragraph [0045]).
However, Ramaswamy discloses:
[…] request to adjust a region of interest (ROI) parameter corresponding to […] (Paragraph [0095], “If the placement of the region varies from frame to frame, the location of the requested region of interest may be updated and the alternate bit depth stream for that updated location is sent to the client device [[…] request to adjust a region of interest (ROI) parameter corresponding to […]] (emphasis added).”;
[…] an adjusted ROI parameter […] (Paragraph [0095], “If the placement of the region varies from frame to frame, the location of the requested region of interest may be updated and the alternate bit depth stream for that updated location is sent to the client device [[…] an adjusted ROI parameter […]] (emphasis added).”.
Ramaswamy is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding systems and methods are described for enabling a client device to request video streams with different bit depth remappings for different viewing conditions. Thus, Ramaswamy is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ramaswamy into the combined teaching of Eichhorn and Souders to include “[…] request to adjust a region of interest (ROI) parameter corresponding to […] ;[…] an adjusted ROI parameter […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to produce desired debug results by including adjustment of region of interest (Ramaswamy, paragraph [0077]).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eichhorn in view of Souders as applied to claim 1, and further in view of US 20160080652 (hereinafter “Shirota”).
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Eichhorn and Souders does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the algorithm indication information comprises an algorithm identifier, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises:
querying a correspondence between an algorithm identifier and a detection algorithm based on algorithm identifiers of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images.
However, Shirota discloses:
wherein the algorithm indication information comprises an algorithm identifier, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises (Paragraph [0083], “For example, apart from the initialization operation of the CMOS image sensor module 70, the application can specify an algorithm identifier of the desired image processing algorithm and can request setting of the image processing algorithm identified by the specified algorithm identifier as the image processing algorithm to be implemented in the first image processing [wherein the algorithm indication information comprises an algorithm identifier, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises] (emphasis added).”:
querying a correspondence between an algorithm identifier and a detection algorithm based on algorithm identifiers of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0083], “For example, apart from the initialization operation of the CMOS image sensor module 70, the application can specify an algorithm identifier of the desired image processing algorithm and can request setting of the image processing algorithm identified by the specified algorithm identifier as the image processing algorithm to be implemented in the first image processing [querying a correspondence between an algorithm identifier and a detection algorithm based on algorithm identifiers of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”.
Shirota is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an information processing device and an image input device. Thus, Shirota is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shirota into the combined teaching of Eichhorn and Souders to include “wherein the algorithm indication information comprises an algorithm identifier, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises: querying a correspondence between an algorithm identifier and a detection algorithm based on algorithm identifiers of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increase the image processing performance by adding additional information between the algorithm and related information (Shirota, paragraph [0055]).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and the combination of Eichhorn and Souders does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the algorithm indication information comprises capturing source information, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises:
querying a correspondence between an image capturing source and a detection algorithm based on capturing source information of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images.
However, Shirota discloses:
wherein the algorithm indication information comprises capturing source information, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises (Paragraph [0077], “For example, the algorithm identified by the algorithm 1 illustrated in FIG. 6 represents the algorithm for the operation of detecting whether or not a specific target object (such as a barcode) is captured in the image obtained by the image sensor control unit 124 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [00101], “For example, in (A) in FIG. 9 is illustrated a case in which the image processing algorithm implemented in the first image processing detects whether or not a barcode is captured. Firstly, the application requests for a change detection operation [wherein the algorithm indication information comprises capturing source information, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises] (emphasis added).”:
querying a correspondence between an image capturing source and a detection algorithm based on capturing source information of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images (Paragraph [0077], “For example, the algorithm identified by the algorithm 1 illustrated in FIG. 6 represents the algorithm for the operation of detecting whether or not a specific target object (such as a barcode) is captured in the image obtained by the image sensor control unit 124 (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [00101], “For example, in (A) in FIG. 9 is illustrated a case in which the image processing algorithm implemented in the first image processing detects whether or not a barcode is captured. Firstly, the application requests for a change detection operation [querying a correspondence between an image capturing source and a detection algorithm based on capturing source information of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images] (emphasis added).”.
Shirota is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding an information processing device and an image input device. Thus, Shirota is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shirota into the combined teaching of Eichhorn and Souders to include “wherein the algorithm indication information comprises an algorithm identifier, and determining image detection algorithms corresponding to the images based on the algorithm indication information of the images comprises: querying a correspondence between an algorithm identifier and a detection algorithm based on algorithm identifiers of the images, and determining the image detection algorithms corresponding to the images.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to increase the image processing performance by adding additional information between the algorithm and related information (Shirota, paragraph [0055]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 9489401 (hereinafter “Garcia”) discloses an object identification system comprises at least one database of reference images.
US 2021/0327070 (hereinafter “WANG”) discloses methods, systems, and media for segmenting an image.
US 2015/0029222 (hereinafter “Hofmann”) discloses method and systems for dynamically configuring an image processing function into at least a first and second detection state on the basis of function parameters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Y.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights