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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the originally filed Specification dated 09/19/2023, paragraph [0058] states “the target area is he minimum area”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 7 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “the specific vehicle” lacks antecedent basis and should be “a specific vehicle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “a distance to the object” should be “the distance to the object.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: “a distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle” should be “the distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle.” Appropriate correction is required.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The flow chart in MPEP 2106, Subject Matter Eligibility Test For Products and Processes, will be referred to establish ineligible subject matter.
Regarding claim 1, Step 1: the claim recites an “apparatus,” which would be categorized as a
product under the four recognized statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One: However, the claim is further directed to the abstract ideas of detecting a candidate area including a specific object from an environment image and extracting a target area from the candidate area, which are mental processes that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) and to the abstract idea of generating a super-resolution image by performing super-resolution processing on the target area, which is a mathematical concept (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Step 2A Prong Two: Additionally, generating the super-resolution image amounts to insignificant extra solution activity that does not add meaningful limitation to the abstract idea, as it is merely generating data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) Step 2B: The additional claim elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as explained above. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-16, additional limitations are directed to further abstract ideas, including the mental processes of comparing to a threshold value, extracting an area (which can be performed using pen and paper), setting threshold values, judging a size, and not extracting an area, and including the mathematical concepts of calculating a distance on the basis of size; directed to non-limiting details on the threshold value, the environment information, the vehicle, the areas, the timing, and the imaging apparatus, which do not integrate the judicial exception . The addition of further abstract ideas and the addition of non-limiting details do not amount to significantly more and therefore the claims are all ineligible.
Regarding claims 17-18, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the “program” and “processing apparatus” of claim 18 amounts to merely an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer elements, and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(d)). This does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are all ineligible.
In addition, claim 18 is also rejected for being directed to a program per se. Claim 18 explicitly recites “an information processing program that causes a processor of an information processing apparatus to operate.” Thus, only a “program” per se is actually claimed with the “processing apparatus” being intended use. Since a computer program per se “has no physical or tangible form, and thus does not fall within any statutory category” (MPEP 2106.03), claim 18 is nonstatutory under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, the claim is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fuchigami (US 20180189590 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fuchigami teaches an information processing apparatus, comprising: a candidate area detection unit that detects a candidate area including a specific object from an environment image acquired by an imaging apparatus (Fuchigami, Figs. 2, 4, detect a candidate area/”identification medium region” including a specific object (including license plates, cars, etc.) from an environment image acquired by an imaging apparatus, [0042, 0061-0066]); a target area extraction unit that extracts a target area from the candidate area (Fuchigami, Figs. 2, 4, extract/identify target area/”super-resolution region” from the candidate area, [0052-0053, 0061-0066]), the target area being a target of super-resolution processing (Fuchigami, Figs. 2, 4, target area/”super-resolution region” is the target of super-resolution processing, [0061-0066]); and a super-resolution processing unit that generates a super- resolution image by performing super-resolution processing on the target area (Fuchigami, Figs. 2, 4, generate a super-resolution image by performing super-resolution processing on the target area for display, [0043, 0061-0066]).
Regarding claim 16, Fuchigami teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing apparatus and the imaging apparatus are provided in a roadside unit (Fuchigami, information processing apparatus and imaging apparatus “may be attached to a roadside camera post installed on the road side of the roadway,” [0044]).
Regarding claims 17, 18, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the method of claim 17 and the program of claim 18 corresponds to the apparatus of claim 1, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
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.
Claim(s) 2, 6-7, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sakai (JP 2019168417 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this JP document).
Regarding claim 2, Fuchigami teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Fuchigami fails to teach where Sakai teaches wherein the target area extraction unit determines whether or not a distance to the object is equal to or greater than a threshold value (Sakai, “It is determined that super-resolution processing should be performed on clusters whose representative distance is greater than or equal to the distance threshold,” determining whether or not the distance to the object/clusters is equal to or greater than a threshold value, pg. 81/98), and extracts, upon determining that the distance is equal to or greater than the threshold value, the target area from the candidate area (Sakai, if distance is equal to or greater than the distance threshold, perform super-resolution processing on the portion of the image containing the cluster [corresponding to extracting the target area from the candidate area for super-resolution processing], pg. 81/98).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchigami using the teachings of Sakai to include Sakai’s determination to extract and perform super-resolution processing upon comparison to a threshold value to Fuchigami’s determination to extract and perform super-resolution processing. Doing so would improve the determination to extract and perform super-resolution processing by providing a threshold for comparison, which would be used to more efficiently decide whether to use the computational power necessary for extraction and super-resolution.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the object is at least part of a vehicle (Fuchigami, object in candidate and target areas is part(s) of vehicle(s), [0042-0044]), and the target area includes a license plate of the vehicle (Fuchigami, target area extracted for super-resolution processing includes a license plate of the vehicle, [0048, 0061-0065, 0091]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the target area includes a license plate of a neighboring vehicle that is a vehicle traveling in the same driving lane as that of the specific vehicle or an adjacent lane (Fuchigami, Figs. 8a-b, target/super-resolution area includes “the license plate of the other vehicle that is present in front of the vehicle,” including vehicles in the same driving lane and vehicles “traveling in a direction opposite” [therefore in the adjacent lane], [0084-0092]).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the specific vehicle includes the information processing apparatus and the imaging apparatus (Fuchigami, specific vehicle includes the analysis/information processing apparatus and the imaging apparatus “on the host vehicle,” [0084-0092]).
Claim(s) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sakai, as applied to claim 2 above, further in view of King (US 11900689 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 2.
However, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai fails to teach where King teaches wherein the threshold value is variable (King, threshold distance to process region of interest is dynamic/variable, Col. 27, Lines 39-59), and the target area extraction unit sets the threshold value on a basis of environment information of surroundings of the imaging apparatus (King, threshold distance value is set on a basis of environment information of surroundings of the imaging apparatus (e.g. “weather conditions”), Col. 27, Lines 39-59).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai, using the teachings of King to include King’s variable threshold dependent on the surrounding environment information for extraction processing to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai, threshold for extraction processing. Doing so would improve the extraction and super resolution processing by providing a variable threshold dependent on the environment, which would be used to more efficiently decide whether to use the computational power necessary for extraction and super-resolution.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, and King teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the environment information indicates weather, illuminance, and/or luminance (King, environment information indicates weather, Col. 27, Lines 39-59).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sakai and King, as applied to claim 3 above, further in view of Paus (US 20200031272 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, and King teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 3.
However, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, and King fails to teach where Paus teaches wherein the target area extraction unit sets, where image quality of the environment image is estimated to be low on a basis of the environment information, a first threshold value as the threshold value (Paus, set first threshold when image quality is low based on environment information (e.g. low “brightness”), [0030]), and sets, where the image quality is not estimated to be low, a second threshold value larger than the first threshold value as the threshold value (Paus, set second threshold that “rise[s]”/is higher where the image quality is not estimated to be low (e.g. “in the case of higher ambient light,” making the image quality higher), [0030]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai and King, using the teachings of Paus to include Paus’ multiple threshold values dependent on the environmental information and estimated image quality to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai and King, variable threshold dependent on the environmental information and corresponding estimated image quality. Doing so would improve the extraction and super resolution processing by providing a variable threshold dependent on the environment and estimated image quality, which would be used to more efficiently decide whether to use the computational power necessary for extraction and super-resolution.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sakai, as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Li (CN 105405321 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this CN document).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7.
However, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai fails to teach where Li teaches wherein the target area extraction unit determines, as a distance to the object, whether or not a distance from the specific vehicle to the neighboring vehicle is equal to or greater than the threshold value (Li, determine, as a distance to the object, whether or not a distance from the specific/first vehicle to the neighboring vehicle is “greater than the safe vehicle distance threshold,” pgs. 12-13/24).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai, using the teachings of Li to include Li’s determination of distance from the specific vehicle to the neighboring vehicle for comparison to a threshold to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai, determination of distance for comparison to a threshold. Doing so would improve the extraction and super resolution processing by providing a distance specifically from a specific vehicle to a neighboring vehicle, which would be used to more efficiently decide whether to use the computational power necessary for extraction and super-resolution depending on how close or far the license plate of the neighboring vehicle is.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sakai, as applied to claim 7 above, further in view of Chun (US 20210390734 A1) and H. Seibel, S. Goldenstein and A. Rocha, "Eyes on the Target: Super-Resolution and License-Plate Recognition in Low-Quality Surveillance Videos," in IEEE Access, vol. 5, pp. 20020-20035, 2017, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2017.2737418., hereinafter referred to as Seibel.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 7.
However, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai fails to teach where Chun teaches further comprising: a license plate judgment unit that judges, on a basis of the image generated by the processing unit, a size of the license plate of the neighboring vehicle and/or a size of characters of the license plate (Chun, Fig. 1, “calculates the size by recognizing the outline image of the license plate of the front vehicle 2 measured while driving, and goes through a control method of calculating the distance of the front vehicle 2 according to each size [of the license plate],” [0047-0052]); and a distance calculation unit that calculates a distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle on a basis of the size (Chun, Fig. 1, “calculates the size by recognizing the outline image of the license plate of the front vehicle 2 measured while driving, and goes through a control method of calculating the distance of the front vehicle 2 [to the first/specific vehicle] according to each size [of the license plate],” [0047-0052]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai, using the teachings of Chun to include Chun’s calculation of distance between the vehicles using a judgement of the license plate size to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai, determination of distance between a vehicle and an object. Doing so would improve the distance determination by providing a distance specifically based on license plate size, which would be used to quickly determine the distance between vehicles.
However, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, and Chun fails to teach where Seibel teaches a license plate judgment unit that judges, on a basis of the super-resolution image generated by the super-resolution processing unit, a size of the license plate of the neighboring vehicle and/or a size of characters of the license plate (Seibel, Fig. 3, judge, on the basis of the super-resolved image, a size of characters of the license plate for segmentation and identification, pgs. 2-3, 9-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai and Chun, using the teachings of Seibel to include Seibel’s judgement of the license plate’s size using a super resolution image to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai and Chun, judgement of the license plate’s size. Doing so would improve the judgement of the license plate by providing a super resolution image, which would be used to better assess the license plate’s true size(s) with the clearer image.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sakai, Chun, and Seibel, as applied to claim 9 above, further in view of Dai (CN 109493280 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this CN document) and Dong (CN 106485187 A, the attached English language translation is used hereinafter as the Official English language translation of this CN document).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, Chun, and Seibel teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9.
However, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, Chun, and Seibel fails to teach where Dai teaches wherein the target area extraction unit refrains, upon determining that the distance to the object is less than the threshold value, from extracting the target area from the candidate area (Dai, “when the distance between the camera and the sample vehicle is less than a preset distance [threshold], the camera can sample vehicle for shooting high resolution vehicle image,” with the high resolution vehicle image being the image not requiring super-resolution processing, corresponding to refraining from extracting the target area from the candidate area for super resolution processing, with the low-resolution image being for if the distance is greater than the threshold, therefore requiring super-resolution processing, pg. 32/53), the license plate judgment unit judges a size of the license plate of the neighboring vehicle and/or a size of characters of the license plate included in the candidate area (Dai, judge/characterize the license plate (including size) of the neighboring vehicle included in the license plate in the high resolution vehicle image [corresponding to candidate area], pgs. 32-33/53).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai, Chun, and Seibel, using the teachings of Dai to include Dai’s refraining from performing super-resolution processing when the distance is less than the threshold value to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai, Chun, and Seibel, super-resolution processing according to threshold comparison. Doing so would improve the determination to extract and perform super-resolution processing by providing a threshold for comparison, which would be used to more efficiently decide whether to use the computational power necessary for extraction and super-resolution.
However, the combination of Fuchigami, Sakai, Chun, Seibel, and Dai fails to teach where Dong teaches and the distance calculation unit calculates a distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle on a basis of the size (Dong, “judges the front vehicle license profile are located in the range of the standard size profile for determining the distance of the front vehicle distance less than the predetermined distance,” determining/calculating the distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle one the basis of the size, when the distance is less than the predetermined distance threshold, pg. 24/42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai, Chun, Seibel, and Dai, using the teachings of Dong to include Dong’s determination/calculation of the distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle on the basis of the license plate size when the distance is less than a threshold to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai, Chun, Seibel, and Dai, determination/calculation of the license plate size when the distance is less than a threshold. Doing so would improve the distance calculation by providing a calculation of the distance based on size of license plate when the distance is less than a threshold, which would be used to more efficiently calculate distance between the specific vehicle and the neighboring vehicle.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sanders (US 20150215623 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Fuchigami teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Fuchigami fails to teach where Sanders teaches wherein the candidate area detection unit periodically detects the candidate area at first timing, and the target area extraction unit periodically extracts the target area at second timing that is less frequent than the first timing (Sanders, periodically detect/output low resolution candidate areas/images at a first timing, and periodically extract/output the high resolution target area/image at a second timing that is less frequent than the first timing, [0041]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchigami using the teachings of Sanders to include Sanders’ periodic detection/extraction of low resolution candidate and high resolution target areas/images, the latter occurring less frequently, to Fuchigami’s detection/extraction of low resolution candidate areas/images and high resolution target areas/images. Doing so would improve the detection/extraction of the areas/images, which would be used to more efficiently utilize the computing power.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sanders, as applied to claim 11 above, further in view of Fu (US 20190095730 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Fuchigami and Sanders teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 11.
However, the combination of Fuchigami and Sanders fails to teach where Fu teaches wherein the super-resolution processing unit periodically generates the super-resolution image at the second timing (Fu, periodically generate the super-resolution image at a second timing/iteration number, [0134-0137]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sanders, using the teachings of Fu to include Fu’s periodic generation of the super-resolution image at the second timing to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sanders, periodic generation of a high-resolution image/area at the second timing. Doing so would improve the generation of the super-resolution image, which would be used to more efficiently utilize the computing power with periodization.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Yang (US 20200008028 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Fuchigami teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Fuchigami fails to teach where Yang teaches wherein the imaging apparatus is a monocular camera (Yang, “The cameras may be monocular cameras,” [0062]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fuchigami using the teachings of Yang to include Yang’s monocular cameras to Fuchigami’s imaging apparatus. Doing so would improve the imaging apparatus, which would be used to make the imaging apparatus more robust and affordable.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fuchigami in view of Sakai, as applied to claim 14 above, further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 14.
However, the combination of Fuchigami and Sakai fails to explicitly teach where Yang explicitly teaches wherein the specific vehicle is an automated driving vehicle (Yang, specific/host vehicle is an automated driving vehicle, [0036, 0106]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Fuchigami, as modified by Sakai, using the teachings of Yang to include Yang’s automated driving vehicle to Fuchigami’s, as modified by Sakai, vehicle. Doing so would improve and expand the use of the super-resolution technology, which would be used to make the automated vehicle’s systems more robust.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEELY G YEARGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5126. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at (571) 272-8243. 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.
/KEELY GWYNNE YEARGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671