DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0029] of the specification states, “Figures 5A, 6A, and 7A illustrate images with a framing error, while figures 5B, 6B, and 7B illustrate images where the image lacks sharpness. Figures 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B, 9B, and 10B illustrate the respective reference images of figures 5A, 6A, 7A, 8A, 9A, and 10A with good framing and good sharpness (emphasis added)”. It appears that this is a typographical error and should be “8A, 9A, and 10A” to maintain consistency with Figures 5-10 and the description in the following sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-6 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “repeating the obtaining, comparing, and monitoring steps (emphasis added)” in lines 7-8. However, it is unclear what the “monitoring” step is referring to. The steps of obtaining, comparing, and storing, are recited in lines 3, 4, and 6, respectively. There is no monitoring step recited prior to lines 7-8. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
As for claims 2-6, these claims are dependent on claim 1 and fail to clarify what the “monitoring” step is referring to.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydin et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0154415 A1) ("Aydin") in view of Cheng et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 111784693 A ("Cheng") and further in view of Sievers et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0359601 A1) ("Sievers").
Regarding claim 1, Aydin discloses an image monitoring method, comprising the steps of: obtaining an image frame (Fig. 2, element 210; paragraph 0030, wherein a video frame (i.e. image frame) is taken as an input);
comparing the obtained image frame with at least one reference image frame (Fig. 2, element 220; paragraphs 0026 and 0030, wherein reference image (i.e. reference image frame) is taken as an input and compared with a video frame (i.e. image frame) to obtain at least one relative quality score (Fig. 2, element 250; paragraph 0030, wherein a quality metric (i.e. relative quality score) is determined);
storing the relative quality score obtained (Paragraphs 0020 and 0022, wherein the resulting quality metric (i.e. relative quality score) from the video quality assessment is stored);
While Aydin additionally teaches repeating the obtaining, comparing, and monitoring steps (Paragraph 0041, where the method, as mapped above, is repeated to compute a quality metric for each video frame) until a monitoring period comes to an end (Fig. 4A, element 350; paragraph 0045, wherein the resulting video quality is plotted over the entire video sequence, indicating an end of the monitoring period when the plotting ends at the last time code of the video), Aydin does not explicitly disclose repeating the steps after a predetermined time has passed. Cheng, on the other hand, teaches extracting frames at preset time intervals. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Cheng discloses after a predetermined time has passed another image is captured and processed. (Paragraph 0060, please see attached translation, wherein an image is obtained at preset time intervals (i.e. predetermined time)).
Cheng is combinable with Aydin because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide diversity in lighting conditions or scene elements in skipped image frames rather than successive image frames, since time periods in real-world scenarios are relatively static images (Cheng, paragraph 0060, please see attached translation).
Aydin and Cheng fail to teach calculating a median quality score of the at least one relative quality score obtained during the monitoring period. Sievers, on the other hand, teaches a median frame peak signal to noise ratio as a quality metric. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, Sievers discloses calculating a median quality score of the at least one relative quality score (Paragraph 0067, wherein a quality metric includes the median frame peak signal to noise ratio (i.e. median quality score) of the difference between frames) obtained during the monitoring period.
Sievers is combinable with Aydin and Cheng because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to eliminate extreme outliers and produces a more realistic measure of overall quality (Sievers, paragraph 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the repetition of steps after a predetermined time has passed, as taught by Cheng, and calculating a median quality score of the at least one relative quality score obtained during the monitoring period, as taught by Sievers, into the image monitoring method, as taught by Aydin, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers disclose the method of claim 1.
Aydin additionally teaches wherein a comparison between the obtained image frame and the at least one reference image frame (Paragraph 0033, wherein the image (i.e. obtained image frame) and reference image (i.e. reference image frame) are compared) is made by at least one of a MS-SSIM algorithm (Paragraph 0034, wherein the comparison can be done by MS-SSIM) or a ratio of Laplacian variances.
Claim 6 has a limitation that is substantially similar to claim 1. Therefore, the rejection applied to claim 1, please see above, also applies equally to claim 6. Furthermore, Aydin discloses a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium (Paragraph 0057) comprising instructions stored thereon (Paragraph 0057), wherein the instructions, when read by a computer (Paragraph 0057), cause the computer to run the steps of the method (Paragraph 0057) as defined in claim 1.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydin et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0154415 A1) ("Aydin") in view of Cheng et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 111784693 A ("Cheng") and Sievers et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0359601 A1) ("Sievers") and further in view of ElArabawy et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2013/0286879 A1) (“ElArabawy”).
Regarding claim 3, Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers disclose the method of claim 1.
Aydin additionally discloses wherein the storing step further comprises: determining whether the obtained relative quality score is below a predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0048).
However, Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers fail to disclose if the obtained relative quality score is below the predetermined threshold, calculating a time in which the obtained relative quality score remains below the predetermined threshold, and triggering an alarm if the relative quality score obtained remains below the predetermined threshold for a period of time greater than a time limit. ElArabawy, on the other hand, teaches an alarm that is generated when the video quality metric falls below the threshold for a time period more than a certain time interval. More specifically, and as it relates to the applicant’s claims, ElArabawy discloses if the obtained relative quality score is below the predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0148), calculating a time in which the obtained relative quality score remains below the predetermined threshold (Paragraph 0148, wherein the time that the video quality metric (i.e. relative quality score) is below the threshold is kept); and
triggering an alarm if the relative quality score obtained remains below the predetermined threshold for a period of time greater than a time limit (Paragraphs 0132 and 0148, wherein an alarm is generated when there is problematic performance, such as the video quality metric being below the threshold for a time period longer than a certain time interval (i.e. time limit)).
ElArabawy is combinable with Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to ensure that a transient drop in the video quality metric does not unnecessarily indicate a problematic performance and trigger recovery action (ElArabawy, paragraph 0149).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate if the obtained relative quality score is below the predetermined threshold, calculating a time in which the obtained relative quality score remains below the predetermined threshold and triggering an alarm if the relative quality score obtained remains below the predetermined threshold for a period of time greater than a time limit, as taught by ElArabawy, into the image monitoring method, as taught by Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aydin et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0154415 A1) ("Aydin") in view of Cheng et al. (Chinese Publication No. CN 111784693 A ("Cheng") and Sievers et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2017/0359601 A1) ("Sievers") and further in view of Lassoued et al. (U.S. Publication No. US 2021/0074155 A1) (“Lassoued”).
Regarding claim 5, Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers disclose the method of claim 1.
However, Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers fail to disclose wherein the predetermined time is 1 minute, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or 60 minutes. Lassoued, on the other hand, teaches transmitting a captured video frame once every 30 minutes (Paragraph 0086, wherein a captured video frame is transmitted once every 30 minutes).
Lassoued is combinable with Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers because they are from the same art of image processing.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to optimize the storage of data due to the relatively low frequency of events of interest (Lassoued, paragraph 0018).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate wherein the predetermined time is 1 minute, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 30 minutes, or 60 minutes, as taught by Lassoued, into the image monitoring method, as taught by Aydin, Cheng, and Sievers, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, the primary reason for allowance is that the prior art fails to teach or reasonably suggest wherein a plurality of time limits are each assigned to a predetermined range of quality scores in combination with the other elements of the claim. The closest prior art (ElArabawy et al., U.S. Publication No. US 2013/0286879 A1) discloses determining if the video quality metric falls below the threshold for a time period more than a certain time interval but fails to disclose a plurality of time limits each being assigned to a predetermined range of quality scores.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL Y DANG whose telephone number is (571)438-9519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday: 7am - 4:30pm.
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, John Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/RACHEL Y DANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/JOHN VILLECCO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights