DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 12/19/2023 and 09/03/2024 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hamano (US 2017/0018060 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Hamano discloses a blur object detection system, comprising:
a memory; (paragraph 36)
an image capturing device, configured to capture a dynamic image, (paragraph 74: CPU causes the image sensor to start an imaging operation and outputs a low pixel moving image to be used for a preview. The CPU then causes the display device provided on a back Surface of the camera to display a moving image read by the image sensor.) wherein the dynamic image comprises a blur object and a general object; and (paragraphs 67-69: The blur restoration processing restores the object area Target3 based on the defined blur restoration filter. As a result, the object area Target3 can be restored and an in-focused image can be obtained. In addition, the blur restoration processing is performed on the remaining object areas other than the object area Target3 by defining the blur restoration filters, respectively. Thus, it becomes feasible to acquire the image illustrated in FIG. 8C, which includes the object area Target3 in an in-focus state.)
a processor, coupled to the image capturing device and the memory, (paragraph 36) and configured to simultaneously or non-simultaneously perform image compression (paragraph 37: JPEG compression processing), blur object detection (paragraphs 92-94: Distribution data that correlates the position on the image frame with the focus deviation amount and converted to distance. Thus, the CPU can obtain distribution data that associates the position on the image frame with the object distance.), and general object detection based on the dynamic image to obtain an image compression file, (paragraphs 75 and 104: The object recognition information includes information indicating the position and range of the object in the image.) a blur object position of the blur object in the dynamic image, (paragraphs 92-94) and a general object position of the general object in the dynamic image, (paragraphs 75 and 104) and store the image compression file, the blur object position, and the general object position to the memory. (paragraphs 99 and 103-105: The CPU stores the captured image in the flash memory. The CPU then stores image related information (i.e., information relevant to the captured image) in the flash memory and the built-in memory. The image related information includes information relating to focus detection result in a shooting operation, object recognition information required to confirm the presence of a human face, and the like.)
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 2-4 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano in view of Tin (US 2013/0129245 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Hamano discloses the claimed invention wherein recovering the blur object in the image stream based on the blur object position (paragraphs 60 and 67-69) but fails to specifically disclose the processor is further configured to read the image compression file from the memory, decompress the image compression file into an image stream.
In related art, Tin discloses read an image compression file from the memory, decompress the image compression file into an image stream. (paragraphs 43-44, 63 and 121)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tin into the teachings of Hamano to effectively control the bit rate of a compression process based on a depth map to allow determination of the distance of each pixel in the image from a region of focus. This makes possible to compress different areas of the image according to a more optimal bit allocation, thereby improving the visual quality of the compressed image for a given target bit rate.
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Hamano, as modified by Tin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processor is further configured to determine that the blur object is a physical object based on an object feature of the blur object, and recover the blur object in the image stream based on the blur object position. (Hamano: paragraphs 60 and 94)
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Hamano, as modified by Tin, discloses the claimed invention wherein the processor is further configured to select the recovered blur object in the image stream based on the blur object position. (Hamano: paragraphs 106-107 and 128)
Claims 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamano in view of Tin and in further view of Zhang (US 2023/0281830 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Hamano, as modified by Tin, discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the processor is further configured to perform blur object detection and general object detection on the dynamic image through an optical flow method.
In related art, Zhang discloses performing blur object detection and general object detection on the dynamic image through an optical flow method. (see at least abstract, paragraphs 15 and 31; figure 2)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Hamano and Tin to effectively correct objects depicted in the foreground and background of images.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665