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:
a. In [0052], line 16, “left corner (a2, b2)” should be “left corner (a5, b5)”.
b. In [0052], line 16, “right corner (A2, b2)” should be “right corner (A5, b5)”.
c. In [0052], line 19, “left corner (a3, c3)” should be “left corner (a2, c2)”.
d. In [0052], line 19, “right corner (A3, c3)” should be “right corner (A2, c2)”.
e. In [0052], line 22, “left corner (a3, b3)” should be “left corner (a2, b2)”.
f. In [0052], line 22, “left corner (a3, c3)” should be “left corner (a2, c2)”.
g. In [0052], line 25, “right corner (A2, b2)” should be “right corner (A5, b5)”.
h. In [0052], line 25, “right corner (A2, c2)” should be “right corner (A5, c5)”.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In regarding claims 1, 12 and 13
Step 1:
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Claims 1, 12 and 13 are directed to a method/system/manufacture executed by one or more processors to process an image. The apparatus acquire a first image including a plurality of objects; detect the objects in the first image; set an object of interest from the objects; determine a first region in the first image to include the object of interest, based on positions of the objects; generate a second image based on the first region determined; and determine a respective second region, indicating a position and a region, of each of the objects in the first image.
Prong 1:The limitations listed below covers performance of the limitation that could be carried out in mental processes.
acquire a first image including a plurality of objects:
Involves in acquiring data which is data gathering step that doesn’t add anything beyond the abstract idea of processing information.detect the objects in the first image:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at an image and detect objects in the image. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.set an object of interest from the objects:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at an image and set an object of interest from the objects. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.
determine a first region in the first image to include the object of interest, based on positions of the objects:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at an image and determine a clip region in the image to include the object of interest, based on positions of the objects. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.
generate a second image based on the first region determined:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at an image and generate an image in the mind after clipping the original image. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.
determine a respective second region, indicating a position and a region, of each of the objects in the first image:
This limitation could be performed mentally because a person could look at an image and determine a second region, indicating a position and a region, of each of the objects in the original image. Hence, this operation could be performed mentally, implying that the claim is directed to a mental process.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a mental process, then it falls within the “Mental process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite additional elements – an image processing apparatus (claim 1), an image processing method (claim 12), a non-transitory computer-readable medium (claim 13), are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computing component / software application.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
For a human, he/she will look at an image and determine what a clipped image looks like based on a determined clip region and the positions of the objects in the original image. The recitation of use of memory and processor to execute instruction doesn’t disclose any inventive concept since it merely invokes the use of generic computer to perform tasks that could otherwise be performed mentally.
Thus, the recited generic additional hardware/software (e.g., processor, machine-readable medium) perform no more than their basic computer function. In the court of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Intl, the court cites a “data processing system” with a “communications controller” and “data storage unit,” for example, —is purely functional and generic (page 16). In the specification of instant application, processor, machine-readable medium are general computer components ([0023] in publication). Generic computer-implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding a generic computer are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional elements taken into consideration individually or in combination fails to amount of significantly more than the abstract idea above.
Regarding claims 2-11, these are dependent claims that recite limitations that extend the mental processes of their respective base claim and therefore also fall under mental steps as explained in their base claim.
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 1-2, 5, 9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tokunaga (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2013/0222621 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Tokunaga teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors (As shown in FIG. 41, this hardware mainly includes a CPU 902, a ROM 904, a RAM 906, a host bus 908, and a bridge 910. [0244]); and one or more memories (As shown in FIG. 41, this hardware mainly includes a CPU 902, a ROM 904, a RAM 906, a host bus 908, and a bridge 910. [0244]), wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are configured to: acquire a first image including a plurality of objects (This technique is a technique of calculating, in the case of a moving image frame including a plurality of objects (persons M1 and M2 in the example of FIG. 1), motion vectors of individual objects (ObjectMV1 and ObjectMV2 in the example of FIG. 1). [0064]); detect the objects in the first image (According to an embodiment of the present technology, there is provided an information processing apparatus including a motion detection part detecting motion information of an object included in a moving image frame [0006]); set an object of interest from the objects (The composition determination technique according to the embodiment relates to a technique of deciding preferred composition in consideration of motion of an object (person M1 in the example of FIG. 3) and cutting out a region suitable for the composition. [0069]); determine a first region in the first image to include the object of interest (At this stage, in the composition determination technique according to the embodiment, a cutout range is decided such that a space is made in the motion direction of the object M1, for example. [0069]), based on positions of the objects (For example, in the example of FIG. 3, the object M1 is located in the vicinity of the center of the frame and is moving in the right direction. [0069].
PNG
media_image1.png
918
658
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); generate a second image based on the first region determined (Then, the cutout range is cut out, undergoes processing such as size adjustment, and after that, is substituted for the original moving image frame. [0069]); and determine a respective second region (The subject region detection part 301 detects a region including the subject (hereinafter referred to as a subject region) from the CUR image using subject detection techniques (also including object recognition, face recognition, face tracking and the like). [0085]), indicating a position and a region, of each of the objects in the first image (Thus, comparing the position of the subject region determined from the ObjectMV information with the position of the subject region detected by subject detection enables enhanced detection accuracy of the subject region. [0111]).
Regarding claim 2, Tokunaga teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine the first region (In this case, a method of cutting out can be considered in which a plurality of subjects approaching each other are recognized as one subject region and, for example, the center of the recognized subject region is set so as to fall on the trisectrix. [0120]) based on the second regions (Thus, comparing the position of the subject region determined from the ObjectMV information with the position of the subject region detected by subject detection enables enhanced detection accuracy of the subject region. [0111]).
Regarding claim 5, Tokunaga teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine the first region to maintain an aspect ratio of the first image (At this time, the cutout range is set to the shape in the same aspect ratio as that of the moving image frame, for example. [0074]).
Regarding claim 9, Tokunaga teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein attributes of the objects are designated by a user ((example 2) a cutout pattern according to a type of the subject (which is designated by the object detection algorithm that is determined by a user). [0113]).
Regarding claim 11, Tokunaga teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to clip the first region (Then, the cutout range is cut out, undergoes processing such as size adjustment, and after that, is substituted for the original moving image frame. [0069]), from the first image (Then, the cutout range is cut out, undergoes processing such as size adjustment, and after that, is substituted for the original moving image frame. [0069]).
Method claim 12 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 1. Therefore method claim 12 corresponds to apparatus claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
Claim 13 is drawn to a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions executable by a processor for executing the method of using the corresponding apparatus as claimed in claim 1. Therefore, claim 13 corresponds to apparatus claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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.
Claims 10 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2013/0222621 A1), hereinafter Tokunaga, in view of Yang (Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN 112218005 A), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 10, Tokunaga teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Yang teaches wherein attributes of the objects include a person, an animal, and an immovable body (detecting targets appearing in the images, wherein the targets are divided into various types including human faces, human bodies, tables, mobile phones, automobiles, animals, plants and the like. Page 8 5th paragraph).
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 Tokunaga to incorporate the teachings of Yang to include a person, an animal, and an immovable body as attributes of the objects in order to provide a video editing method which can automatically complete video editing work and improve editing efficiency.
Regarding claim 3, Yang in the combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine end positions of the first region (
PNG
media_image2.png
212
428
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) to be matched (As shown in fig. 3, it is assumed that there are 3 types of types in which the weight value of the target area in the first type is greater than or equal to the preset threshold in one frame image, and the number of the 3 types of target areas is 1, that is, there are 3 target areas to be clipped in one frame image, which are area 1, area 2, and area 3, respectively, and according to the coordinates of the 3 target areas, the maximum width and height of the clipping area composed of the 3 target areas are determined, that is, the width of the target area is composed of the leftmost edge and the rightmost edge in the coordinates of the 3 target areas, and the height of the target area is composed of the uppermost edge and the lowermost edge. Page 11 4th paragraph) with end positions of the second regions (
PNG
media_image3.png
212
428
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Claim 6-8 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2013/0222621 A1), hereinafter Tokunaga, in view of Andresen (US Patent Pub. No.: US 2024/0054786 A1), hereinafter Andresen.
Regarding claim 6, Tokunaga teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention as stated in claim 1 except for the following limitations as further recited. However, Andresen teaches wherein, in a case where a number of objects included in the first region is greater than a threshold, the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine the first region to cause the number of objects included in the first region to be less than the threshold (limiting the possible candidate sets of crop regions to possible candidate sets where each crop region in the candidate set includes less than, or equal to, a predefined number of bounding boxes (e.g. 4 or less, more preferably 3 or less, more preferably 2 or less, more preferably 1, bounding boxes). [0063]. each bounding box includes a detected object of a predefined type. Abstract).
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 Tokunaga to incorporate the teachings of Andresen to determine the first region to cause the number of objects included in the first region to be less than the threshold in order to not make multiple people look much smaller in a clipped image than if there is a single person in the clipped image.
Regarding claim 7, Andresen in the combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a rate of a size of a region corresponding to a face of the object of interest to a size of the first region is less than a preset rate, the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine the first region by reducing a number of objects included in the first region (limiting the possible candidate sets of crop regions to possible candidate sets where each crop region in the candidate set includes less than, or equal to, a predefined number of bounding boxes (e.g. 4 or less, more preferably 3 or less, more preferably 2 or less, more preferably 1, bounding boxes). [0063]. For example, the one or more predefined types of object may include a person's face, a person's head, and/or a person's head and shoulders, for example. [0019]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a rate of a size of a face to the size of the region is correlated with the number of objects in the region.).
Regarding claim 8, Andresen in the combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where a rate of an area of the first region to an area of the first image is less than a preset rate, the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine the first region by increasing a number of objects included in the first region (The method may further comprise determining a size of one or more crop regions from the subsequent frame, and splitting a crop region from the subsequent frame into two or more resulting crop regions if the size exceeds a predefined size threshold. [0091]. In other words, if the size is smaller than a threshold (which reads on “a rate of an area of the first region to an area of the first image is less than a preset rate”), combine crop regions (which reads on “to determine the first region by increasing a number of objects included in the first region”).).
Regarding claim 4, Andresen in the combination teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to determine the first region (Each crop region includes at least one bounding box and each bounding box includes a detected object of a predefined type. Abstract) based on any one of a number of objects included in the first region (limiting the possible candidate sets of crop regions to possible candidate sets where each crop region in the candidate set includes less than, or equal to, a predefined number of bounding boxes (e.g. 4 or less, more preferably 3 or less, more preferably 2 or less, more preferably 1, bounding boxes). [0063]. each bounding box includes a detected object of a predefined type. Abstract), a rate of a region corresponding to a face of the object of interest to the first region (limiting the possible candidate sets of crop regions to possible candidate sets where each crop region in the candidate set includes less than, or equal to, a predefined number of bounding boxes (e.g. 4 or less, more preferably 3 or less, more preferably 2 or less, more preferably 1, bounding boxes). [0063]. For example, the one or more predefined types of object may include a person's face, a person's head, and/or a person's head and shoulders, for example. [0019]. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize “a rate of a region corresponding to a face of the object of interest to the first region” correlates with the number of objects in the region.), and a rate of the first region to the first image (The method may further comprise determining a size of one or more crop regions from the subsequent frame, and splitting a crop region from the subsequent frame into two or more resulting crop regions if the size (which correlates with “a rate of the first region to the first image”) exceeds a predefined size threshold. [0091]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHAO whose telephone number is (703)756-1922. 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, VU LE can be reached at (571)272-7332. 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.
/LEI ZHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/VU LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2668
Prosecution Insights