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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/17/2024. These drawings are accepted.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibagami et al. (US20200213575, hereinafter “Shibagami”)
Claim 1. Shibagami teaches An electronic device comprising:
a processor; ([0039] “image processing unit 24 performs prescribed computing processing”) and
a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, ([0044] “executing the program recorded in the nonvolatile memory”) causes the electronic device to
obtain an image, ([0039] “using image data of a picked-up image.”)
detect a specific object from the image, ([0097] “designating an unnecessary portion that is an object that is desirably not included”)
determine a range ([0097] “clipping range”) corresponding to an angle of view ([0075] “the clipping has a valid video range corresponding to a field of view of 180 degrees”) including the detected specific object in the image, ([0097] “Once an unnecessary portion is designated, when designating a center of a clipping range so that the unnecessary portion is not included in the clipping range, a range that can be designated and a range that cannot be designated are to be identifiably displayed.” ) and
selectively execute either of setting processing for hiding the range of the image ([0077] “unnecessary objects can be deleted…By performing clipping processing to clip only a range intended by the photographer and discard video of other unnecessary ranges,”) and setting processing for performing image processing to reduce visibility of the range of the image, ([0140] “the excluded range displayed in the lower region 902, a semi-transparent mask of a prescribed color, color conversion such as displaying in monochrome or sepia, screening, or the like may be applied” is understood to be the same as the claimed reduce visibility) depending on a state of the specific object. ([0097] “designating an unnecessary portion that is an object that is desirably not included in a clipping range.” )
Claim 3. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
wherein the image processing is blurring. ([0140] “the excluded range displayed in the lower region 902, a semi-transparent mask of a prescribed color… or the like may be applied” when a semi-transparent mask is applied to an object it is understood to be the same as the claimed blurring )
Claim 4. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
wherein, in a case where the specific object is included in another range that has already been set so as to be hidden, the range of the image is set so as to be hidden. ([0077] “unnecessary objects can be deleted…By performing clipping processing to clip only a range intended by the photographer and discard video of other unnecessary ranges,” and fig. 7 when a range is clipped to delete objects, it is understood to be the same as the claimed range is set to be hidden)
Claim 11. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein a specific range of the image is not set so as to be hidden. ([0097] “a range that cannot be designated are to be identifiably displayed.””)
Claim 12. The method herein has been executed and performed by the device of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
Claim 13. The non-transitory computer readable medium herein has been executed and performed by the device of claim 1 and is likewise rejected.
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.
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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagami et al. (US20200213575, hereinafter “Shibagami”) and in view of Yuan et al (US20230342888, hereinafter “Yuan”)
Claim 2. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami does not explicitly teach wherein the image processing is pixelation.
Yuan teaches wherein the image processing is pixelation. ([0051] “In such an embodiment, masking is usually performed by increasing a level of pixelation of an object.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibagami to have pixelation of an object as taught by Yuan to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it (Yuan et al [0049] “allows to improve situational awareness without performing unmasking of areas of the scene not related to e.g., a currently tracked object of interest,” )
Claims 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagami et al. (US20200213575, hereinafter “Shibagami”) and in view of Baldev et al (US20210349677, hereinafter “Baldev”)
Claim 5. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case where a distance between an object indicated by a user and the specific object is longer than a threshold, the range of the image is set so as to be hidden.
Baldev teaches wherein, in a case where a distance ([0036] “discriminating between objects in terms of depth”) between an object indicated by a user ([0042] “user may be provided with an interface through which he or she could upload examples of interfaces that would be displayed by instruments in his or her lab, and could then specify how those interfaces should be masked”) and the specific object is longer than a threshold, ([0036] “blurring out all objects except those that were less than a threshold distance” not blurring those objects that are less than a threshold is the same as blurring objects which are longer than a threshold) the range of the image is set so as to be hidden. ([0036] “removing 304 extraneous material from the image of the user's field of view.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibagami to have hide an object that is more than a threshold away from another object as defined by the user as taught by Baldev to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it would (Baldev et al [0040] “allow for more effective identification and screening of sensitive information.” )
Claim 9. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami teaches wherein, in a case where a distance between another range that has already been set so as to be hidden and the specific object is shorter than a threshold, the range including the specific object is set so as to be hidden.
Baldev teaches wherein, in a case where a distance ([0036] “discriminating between objects in terms of depth”) between another range that has already been set ([0042] “user may be provided with an interface through which he or she could upload examples of interfaces that would be displayed by instruments in his or her lab, and could then specify how those interfaces should be masked”) so as to be hidden and the specific object is longer than a threshold, ([0036] “blurring out all objects except those that were less than a threshold distance” not blurring those objects that are less than a threshold is the same as blurring objects which are longer than a threshold) the range including the specific object is set so as to be hidden. ([0036] “removing 304 extraneous material from the image of the user's field of view.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibagami to have hide an object that is shorther than a threshold away from another object as defined by the user as taught by Baldev to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it would (Baldev et al [0040] “allow for more effective identification and screening of sensitive information.” )
Baldev teaches discloses the claimed invention except for shorter than a threshold. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to hide an object shorter than a threshold, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (MPEP 2144.05 (II-A)).
Claim 10. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami does not explicitly teach wherein a range including an object indicated by a user is not set so as to be hidden.
Baldev teaches wherein a range including an object indicated by a user is not set so as to be hidden. ([0036] “blurring out all objects except those that were less than a threshold distance” when objects are blurred out except those less than a threshold it is understood to be the same as the claimed not set so as to be hidden)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibagami to have a range including an object selected by a user not set to be hidden as taught by Baldev to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it would (Baldev et al [0040] “allow for more effective identification and screening of sensitive information.” )
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagami et al. (US20200213575, hereinafter “Shibagami”) and in view of Lee et al (US20230245337, hereinafter “Lee”)
Claim 6. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case where a proportion of a size of a region of the specific object to a size of a region corresponding to the range including the specific object is higher than a threshold, the range of the image is set so as to be hidden.
Lee teaches wherein, in a case where a proportion of a size of a region of the specific object ([0072] “object of interest”) to a size of a region corresponding to the range including the specific object ([0072] “area of a threshold size including the object… threshold ratio”) is higher than a threshold, ([0072] “ratio of the object of interest in the first area is equal to or greater than a threshold ratio.”) the range of the image is set so as to be hidden. ([0072] “excluding the object of interest”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibagami to have hide an object if its size ratio compared to the size of the region is greater than a threshold as taught by Lee to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it would (Lee et al [0104] “more accurately identify the background object” )
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagami et al. (US20200213575, hereinafter “Shibagami”) and in view of Niu et al (US12444072, hereinafter “Niu”)
Claim 7. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case where a movement speed of the specific object is lower than a threshold, the range is set so as to be hidden.
Niu teaches wherein, in a case where a movement speed of the specific object (col25line47 “speed value of the tracked object”) is lower than a threshold, (col25line45 “lower than the first threshold value, maintaining the tracked object in the velocity cache as long as movement is detected by the device 110.”) the range is set so as to be hidden. (col25line37 “tracked object should be removed from the obstacle map.”)
It would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibagami to have hide an object base on its speed being lower than a threshold as taught by Niu to arrive at the claimed invention discussed above. The motivation for the proposed modification would have been because it would (Niu et al col23 line29 “To improve performance of the device 110 and/or an accuracy of the occupancy map” )
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibagami et al. (US20200213575, hereinafter “Shibagami”) and in view of Peuhkurinen et al (US20210018754, hereinafter “Peuhkurinen”)
Claim 8. Shibagami teaches The electronic device according to claim 1,
Shibagami does not explicitly teach wherein, in a case where a proportion of a number of viewers viewing the specific object to a number of all viewers is lower than a threshold, the range is set so as to be hidden.
Peuhkurinen teaches wherein, in a case where a proportion of a number of viewers viewing the specific object to a number of all viewers is lower than a threshold, the range is set so as to be hidden. ([0051] “based on the detected gaze direction of the user, by controlling opacity masks to dynamically adjust only current-gaze contingent portions of the plurality of copies of the second image to pass through the optical waveguides towards the user's eyes.” In this case the number of viewers is one, when the gaze of the one user is not looking in a certain direction then the proportion is lower than a threshold whereupon the opacity mask is applied. Fig. 4c)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Inoue et al US20150163397 teaches an unnecessary object removal function
Hamanaka et al US20130329068 teaches blurring out objects based on a distance from the camera
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OWAIS MEMON whose telephone number is (571)272-2168. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:00am - 4:00pm) CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached at (571) 272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OWAIS I MEMON/Examiner, Art Unit 2663