Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/20/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 16 objected to because of the following informalities:
The limitation of “an image sensor configured to output the first image data” lacks clarity. It is unclear whether the claimed “image sensor” is actually the source of the “first image data” the claim 1 processor operates on, or whether it’s merely present and outputs some data somewhere else. Examiner suggests amending claim limitation to read, “…. an image sensor configured to output the first image data to the image processing apparatus.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 recites the terms “stronger” and “weaker”, claim 11 recites the term “stronger”, and claim 12 recites the term “weaker” to describe an aberration which are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “stronger” and “weaker” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitations of claim 10 “determine the characteristic so that aberration becomes stronger in a case where it is determined based on the change amount that the object changes to become larger in the angle of view, and determine the characteristic so that aberration becomes weaker in a case where it is determined based on the change amount that the object changes to become smaller in the angle of view”, limitations of claim 11 “determine the characteristic as a third characteristic so that aberration becomes stronger in any one of a case where a change has occurred by a first change amount so that the zoom magnification becomes larger and a case where a change has occurred by a second change amount so that the distance becomes shorter, and determine a fourth characteristic so that the aberration becomes stronger than that with the third characteristic in a case where the zoom magnification has changed by the first change amount and the distance has changed by the second change amount.”, and limitations of claim 12 “determine the characteristic to be a fifth characteristic so that aberration becomes weaker in any one of a case where a change has occurred by a third change amount so that the zoom magnification becomes smaller and a case where a change has occurred by a fourth change amount so that the distance becomes longer, and determine a sixth characteristic so that the aberration becomes weaker than with the fifth characteristic in a case where the zoom magnification has changed by the third change amount and the distance has changed by the fourth change amount.”, are unclear and subjective. The claim does not specify what constitutes “stronger” and what constitutes “weaker”. It is not apparent whether “stronger” and “weaker” refer to an increase in a numerical value, a decrease in a numerical value, exceeding a threshold, or how the metric is measured. The examples of “stronger” found in ¶¶ [0039]- [0040] of the specifications fail to rise to the level of a definition. Therefore, the claim remains indefinite. Because the claim fails to define the scope of “stronger,” the examiner cannot determine what subject matter would be anticipated or rendered obvious; therefore, no prior art rejection is applied for claims 10, 11, and 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental processes (concepts performed in a human mind, including as an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, organizing human activity and/or mathematical concepts and calculations). The independent claims 1 and 17 recite an apparatus and method that determines a characteristic to be applied to an image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1 and 17 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
► STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories?
YES. Independent claims 1 and 17 are directed to an apparatus and method that determines a characteristic to be applied to an image.
► STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?
YES, the claims are directed toward a mental processes and/or mathematical concepts (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1 and 17 comprise mental processes and/or mathematical concepts that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1 and 17, the limitations recite:
acquire optical characteristic data of an optical system (This step falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas because the acquiring information can be a person looking at an optical system), acquire information about zoom magnification (This step falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas because the acquiring of information can be a person looking at how the optical system is portraying an image and whether or not it is zoomed), acquire information about a distance to an object (This step falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas because the acquiring of information can be a person observing how far an object is from where the image was taken), acquire a change amount of at least one of the zoom magnification and the distance based on at least one of the information about the zoom magnification and the information about the distance (This step falls into the “mental process” grouping of abstract ideas because the acquiring of information can be a person observing a change amount of a zoom magnification in relation to the distance of an object), determine a characteristic to be applied to first image data based on the change amount and the optical characteristic data (This step falls into the “mental process” grouping of an abstract ideas because the determination of a characteristic to be applied to first image data based on the change amount can be a person deciding to any number of mental characteristics to an observed image and its perceived change amount), and generate second image data by applying the characteristic to the first image data (This step falls into the “mental process” grouping of an abstract ideas because a person could mentally observe and evaluate the information from the first image, then generate a second image in their head based on the observed information).
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
►STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1 and 17 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
Independent claim 1 discloses processor and a memory, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in the apparatus claim.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. Accordingly, even in combination, these 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.
►STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 17 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements is routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers.
Regarding claims 6-9, 14-16, and 18 the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into a practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitations(s): is/are generic computer components.
Thus, claims 1, 6-9, and 14-18 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1, 6-9, and 14-18 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 10-13 the optical characteristic is integrated into a practical application in claims 2-5 and 10-13. The claimed characteristic is tied to a physical optical system and image sensor pipeline (Lens 101 forms the optical image, sensor 102 outputs raw image data, characteristic applying unit 103 applies a lens characteristic to raw image data. The image processing is within an image pickup apparatus pipeline generating video data (refer to ¶¶ [0020] - [0021])). The claimed characteristic applied accounts for a point spread function (¶ [0035] “The characteristic applied by the characteristic applying unit 103 is a point spread function (PSF). FIG. 7 illustrates a PSF that applies a characteristic with a small blur amount (aberration) (PSF that expresses weak aberration). FIG. 8 illustrates a PSF that applies a characteristic with a large blur amount (aberration) (PSF that expresses strong aberration)”). There are also a number of claimed improvements relating to the optical characteristic in claims 2-5 and 10-13 (The apparatus aims to address, ¶ [0005] “the calculation amount increases in an attempt to apply a proper characteristic while the object size in the angle of view is calculated.”; The reason for differential characteristic generation is to avoid recalculating object size and selecting a full characteristic every time, which otherwise yields large computation and makes smooth video processing difficult (¶ [0038]); The disclosed solution reduces calculation amount and smoothly changes a characteristic applied to a captured image (¶ [0043])).
Claims 2-5 and 10-13 are not directed to an abstract idea since the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and add significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claims 2-5 and 10-13 are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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) 1-6 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Irie et al. (US 9,906,732 B2).
Regarding apparatus claim 1, method claim 17, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim 18:
Irie et al. teaches an image processing apparatus and method comprising (refer to Col. 1, lines 17-20 “The present invention relates to an image processing device, an image capture device, an image processing method, and a program for a restoration process based on a point spread function”):
a memory storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to (refer to Col. 46, lines 24-26, Claim 20 "A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program which causes a computer to execute the image processing method"):
acquire optical characteristic data of an optical system (Refer to Col. 1, lines 33-35 “The point image restoration process is a process in which a deterioration characteristic (point image characteristic) caused by aberration or the like of a lens is determined”, and refer to Col. 3, lines 17-21, “An aspect of the invention relates to an image processing device including a filter application unit which applies a restoration filter based on a point spread function of an optical system to source image data acquired through photographing using the optical system”. Examiner interprets the point image characteristic acquired through a restoration filter function of the optical system as acquiring optical characteristic data of an optical system.),
acquire information about zoom magnification, acquire information about a distance to an object (Refer to Abstract, “A restoration filter based on a point spread function of an optical system is applied to source image data acquired through photographing using the optical system to acquire restored image data”; Refer to Col. 1, lines 38-41 “The restoration filter used for the point image restoration process is designed based on various condition elements (lens type, diaphragm value (F value), zoom magnification, object distance…”),
acquire a change amount of at least one of the zoom magnification and the distance based on at least one of the information about the zoom magnification and the information about the distance (Irie et al. teaches a change amount based on conditions of data, including the zoom magnification and distance, as a point spread function which is calculated using the restoration filter, Refer to Col. 12, lines 28-39),
determine a characteristic to be applied to first image data based on the change amount and the optical characteristic data and generate second image data by applying the characteristic to the first image data (Irie et al. teaches a filter application applied to the determined point spread function characteristic, taught in previous limitation and based on change amount, to the source data (i.e. first image data) to generate restored image data (i.e. second image data). Refer to Col. 13, lines 9-12 “The filter application unit 41 applies the restoration filter based on the point spread function based on the optical system (the lens 16, the diaphragm 17, or the like) to source image data, and acquires restored image data.”. Examiner interprets source image data as first image data and restored image data as second image data.).
Regarding claim 2:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Irie et al. further teaches: wherein the optical characteristic data is a parameter for reproducing an aberration characteristic of the optical system by signal processing (Irie et al. teaches an optical system with an aberration represented by a point spread function (PSF) as a parameter (Refer to Col. 1, line 22-29). Examiner interprets an aberration (i.e. aberration characteristic) to be based on optical characteristic data. The PSF parameter is used in a point image restoration process to recovered image quality using a restoration filter process caused by the aberration (see Col. 1, line 30-33). Examiner notes a filtration process is a known signal processing method in the art. Irie et al. teaches reproducing an aberration characteristic during the filtration process by acquiring source image data and restored image data (image data without the aberration characteristic or PSF) to acquire recovered image data (Col. 8, lines 13-29). Examiner interprets the process of acquiring recovered image data as a reproducing the aberration characteristic data because a recovered image is the source image (with the aberration), minus the restored image (image with aberration removed), resulting in a recovered image consisting of the aberration characteristic (refer back to Col. 8, lines 13-29 and Abstract)).
Regarding claim 3:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1 and accounting for zoom magnification changes’ impact on zoom magnification and point spread function (PSF)(Col. 1, lines 66-67 – Col. 2 lines 1-14).
Irie et al. further teaches: generate differential characteristic data about the optical system based on the change amount (Refer to Col. 3, lines 39-44 “the common restoration filter with regard to the optical zoom magnification can be compensated for by determining “the amplification factor of the difference between the source image data and the restored image data” based on the optical zoom magnification.”), and
determine the characteristic to be applied to the first image data based on the differential characteristic data and the optical characteristic data (Irie et al. teaches applying a restoration filter using an “amplification factor” to the source image data based on the zoom magnification, and the point spread function (PSF) (ABSTRACT). Accordingly, examiner interprets an amplification factor as the characteristic, source image as the first image, zoom magnification as differential characteristic data, and PSF as optical characteristic data (Refer back to claim 2 rejection for further explanation of PSF).
Regarding claims 4 and 5:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 3.
Irie et al. further teaches: to generate a difference (Col 3, lines 22-26, “gain adjustment unit which performs adjustment of an amplification factor of the difference between the source image data and the restored image data and acquires recovered image data from the difference”; Irie et al. teaches a filter application calculates source image data Do, then a difference derivation process is used to calculate difference data ΔD, “as shown in FIG. 4, in the difference derivation process P.sub.d, difference data ΔD (ΔD=Dr1−Do) between restored image data Dr1 passing through the filter application process P.sub.f and source image data Do is calculated.” (Col. 14, lines 6-9)),
for changing a first characteristic to a second characteristic based on the change amount (claim 4) and to determine the second characteristic based on the difference (claim 5). Irie et al. teaches during the gain adjustment unit, and after the filter application process is completed (and Do is calculated), “the adjustment of the amplification factor (restoration gain) G of difference data ΔD is performed to calculate the difference value (G×ΔD)” (Col. 10-12), which is further used to calculate the recovered image data.
In summary, Irie et al. teaches to generate a difference (ΔD=Dr1−Do) using a difference derivation process for changing a first characteristic (restoration gain (G)) to a second characteristic (difference value (G×ΔD)) based on the change amount (ΔD) (claim 4) and to determine the second characteristic (difference value (G×ΔD)) based on the difference (ΔD) by multiplying the first characteristic (G) and the difference (ΔD)) (claim 5).
Regarding claim 6:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Irie et al. further teaches: wherein the zoom magnification is zoom magnification for at least one of optical zoom control and electronic zoom control (Refer to Col. 9, lines 4-9, “Preferably, the image capture device further includes a zoom control unit which is able to switch between an optical zoom and a digital zoom, and the magnification of the optical zoom to be a criterion for switching between the optical zoom and the digital zoom is determined based on the point spread function of the optical system”).
Regarding claim 16:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Irie et al. further teaches: an image pickup apparatus comprising: the image processing apparatus according to claim 1; and an image sensor configured to output the first image data (Refer to Fig. 2 and to Col. 10, lines 6- 31 found below).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
437
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner interprets the image capture element of the camera body with a condensing microlens is an image pickup apparatus and the source image data output to a body is the first image data output.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The arguments advanced in section 6 above, as to the applicability of Irie et al., are incorporated herein, section 7.
Claims 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie et al. (US 9,906,732 B2) in view of Musk et al. (US 11,790,664 B2).
Regarding claim 7:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, including acquiring the information about distance.
Irie et al. fails to explicitly disclose acquiring the information about the distance using a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, or a phase difference sensor.
In a related art, Musk et al. explicitly teaches: Acquiring information about distance using a variety of sensors, including an ultrasonic sensor, (Musk et al., Col. 3, lines 9-12, “Emitting distance sensors may emit a signal (e.g., radio signal, ultrasonic signal, light signal, etc.) in detecting a distance of an object from the sensor.”; Musk et al., Col. 1, lines 7-9 “collection of vision and emitting distance sensors (e.g., radar sensor, lidar sensor, ultrasonic sensor, etc.)”). Examiner interprets Musk et al. teaches the possibility of using other sensor types known in the art (e.g. laser sensor, infrared sensor, or a phase difference sensor) when acquiring distance information based on the nonlimiting sensor types taught in Col. 3, lines 9-12, “Emitting distance sensors may emit a signal (e.g., radio signal, ultrasonic signal, light signal, etc.) in detecting a distance…” and Col. 1, lines 7-9 “distance sensors (e.g., radar sensor, lidar sensor, ultrasonic sensor, etc.”.
Musk et al. is considered to be analogous art to Irie et al. and the instant application because it receives image data and acquires distance values associated with objects found in the image data (Musk et al., Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Irie et al. to incorporate the teachings of Musk et al. and acquire information about the distance (Irie et al., Abstract, Col. 1, lines 38-41) by using a laser sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, an infrared sensor, or a phase difference sensor (Musk et al., Col. 3, lines 9-12). Doing so would make the apparatus more robust and provide alternative methods of acquiring information.
Regarding claim 8:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, including
Irie et al. further teaches: an angle view (Refer to Fig.’s 6-9 for relationship examples of zoom magnification of an optical zoom response of image data and corresponding wide angle, telescopic end, focal distance, and response.).
Irie et al. fails to teach wherein in a case where a plurality of objects exist in an angle of view, the processor is configured to acquire the information about the distance to one object selected from among the plurality of objects.
In a related art, Musk et al. teaches: one or more processors acquiring the distance of an object captured in an image (Abstract). Musk et al. further teaches when there are multiple objects (e.g. cars) in an angle view (Refer to Col. 3, lines 53-56 “By analyzing the image and auxiliary data across the time series, ambiguities such as multiple objects with similar distances can be resolved with a high degree of accuracy”) the processor can select one object from the plurality of objects based on either auxiliary data or by using a trained machine learning model to acquire distance information (See Col. 3, lines 57-67, through Col. 4 lines 1-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Irie et al. to incorporate the teachings of Musk et al. and account for individual object’s distance when there are numerous objects present in the angle view. Doing so would make the system more robust by providing the user with additional methods of identifying object distances and more efficient by identifying specific objects in an image to acquire distance information from, rather than acquiring distance information for all objects present. The increased efficiency would increase the utility for a system analyzing images with a large plurality of objects looking to find the distance information of only one object.
Regarding claim 15:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, including acquire the information about the distance (See Abstract and Col. 1, lines 38-41).
Irie et al. fails to disclose acquire the information about the distance from metadata.
In a related art, Musk et al. teaches: to acquire the information about the distance from metadata (See Col. 16, lines 39-45, Musk et al. “image data is associated with auxiliary sensor data, such as distance, direction, and/or velocity data, to generate a ground truth… In some embodiments, metadata is transmitted along with the sensor data.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Irie et al. to incorporate the teachings of Musk et al. to acquire distance information for the image processing apparatus from metadata. Doing so would have increased the speed of acquiring distance information by allowing for access to readily stored data, thus making the apparatus run more efficiently.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie et al. (US 9,906,732 B2) in view of Johnston et al. (EP 2634750 B1; copy provided by examiner).
Regarding claim 9:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, including wherein the change amount (Irie et al. teaches a change amount based on conditions of data, including the zoom magnification and distance, as a point spread function, representing an aberration, which is calculated using the restoration filter, refer to Col. 12, lines 28-39 and Col. 1, line 22-29. Irie et al. further teaches an angle view is used throughout, refer to Fig.’s 6-9 for relationship examples of zoom magnification of an optical zoom response of image data and corresponding wide angle, telescopic end, focal distance, and response.).
Irie et al. fails to teach: wherein the change amount is a change in a size of an object in an angle of view, which is determined based on a relationship between a change in the zoom magnification and a change in the distance.
In a related art, Johnston et al. teaches: to calculate object size using a function that explicitly depends on zoom magnification and object to camera distance. Object size is calculated based on zoom distance parameters; therefore, any change in zoom or object distance results in a change in the calculated object size. See excerpt from Johnston et al., p. 7, lines 7-22, provided below.
PNG
media_image2.png
349
863
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Irie et al. and Johnston et al. are analogous towards the instant application because if interpreting image content when object size varies with zoom distance, one would look to Irie et al. and Johnston et al. as references that teach how zoom magnification and distance affect image scale and size.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Irie et al. to incorporate the teachings of Johnston et al. to determine a change amount of an object or a PSF (representing an aberration), based on changes in zoom magnification and distance, by using the algorithm taught by Johnston et al. to calculate a relationship metric and change in object size. Doing so would make the more robust by accounting for changes directly related to an object or aberration’s size, rather than changes to an image throughout a filtration process as taught by Irie et al.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie et al. (US 9,906,732 B2) in view of Johnston et al. (EP 2634750 B1) and in further view of Tezaur et al. (US 20160048952 A1).
Regarding claim 13:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1.
Irie et al. and Johnston et al. teach: wherein theThese limitations equally mirror the limitations found in claim 9. Refer to claim 9’s 103 rejection, found above, for Irie et al. and Johnston et al.s’ teachings of the limitations found herein claim 13 and for the reasoning for incorporating Irie et al.’s teachings with Johnston et al.’s teachings as explained in claim 9.
Irie et al. and Johnston et al. fail to disclose a predetermined range for determining if a characteristic is not to be changed.
In a related art, Tezaur teaches: using a predetermined range equaling a predetermined threshold or higher and when a region score falls within the predetermined range, point spread function (PSF) estimation is performed to estimate a region’s PSF (¶ [0290] “In another embodiment, PSF estimation is only performed using the image regions having a region score that is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold.”; ¶ [0045] “the present invention is directed to a system and method for estimating a region point spread function for an image region.”). Examiner interprets a region score equaling a predetermined threshold or higher as a characteristic falling within a predetermined range for the PSF estimation to occur, resulting in a change in an estimated region PSF characteristic. Examiner also interprets when a region score falls within a predetermined range below the predetermined threshold taught by Tezur et al., the(PSF estimate).
Tezaur et al. is considered an analogous art to Irie et al., Johnston et al., and the instant application because it is also directed towards interpreting images and regions of an image. Additionally, Tezaur et al. and Irie et al. are good references for learning about point spread function to analyze impact of a aberrations or blurs within an image (See Tezaur et al. Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Irie et al. and Johnston et al. to incorporate the teachings Tezaur et al. and use a predetermined threshold for creating a range to determine if a characteristic should or should not be changed (as taught by Tezaur et al.). The use of a range in determining not to change a characteristic, taught by Tezaur et al., would provide for an additional tool for accurately determining characteristics in a blurry image (Tezaur et al. ¶ [0009]) by preventing a processor from changing the characteristic if the change amount of a size of the object in the angle view falls in the predetermined range.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Irie et al. (US 9,906,732 B2) in view of Pulakka et al. (US 20220337754 A1).
Regarding claim 14:
Irie et al. teaches the limitations of claim 1, including acquiring the information about zoom magnification.
Irie et al. fails to disclose wherein the processor is configured to acquire the information about the zoom magnification from metadata.
In a related art, Pulakka et al. teaches: wherein the processor is configured to acquire the information about the zoom magnification from metadata (¶ [0036] “when run by at least one processor causes: obtaining a sequence of zoom levels”; ¶ [0014] “the image metadata defines a sequence of manual zoom levels”).
Pulakka et al. is considered to be analogous art to the instant application because it also captures and processes images using sensors, while accounting for zoom magnification (Abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Irie et al. to incorporate the teachings of Pulakka et al. and acquire information about the zoom magnification from metadata. Doing so would have increased the speed of acquiring zoom magnification information, thus making the apparatus run more efficiently.
Relevant art not relied upon
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Winterot (US 9652847 B2): teaches a method for calibrating a digital optical imaging system including distance and zoom settings, and factoring corrections for aberrations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL DAVID BAYNES whose telephone number is (571)272-0607. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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 R 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.
/S.D.B./
Samuel Baynes
Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665