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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues on remarks page 8 lines 8-19 [In contrast, embodiments of the disclosed technology require determination of a "relative height" of a peak in relation to the highest minimum found between that peak and another higher peak in the distribution. For example, Claim 1 recites that this "relative height" is taken into account in detecting at least one region of interest. As described in the present application, the detection of a region of interest allows the identification and isolation of an object within the image.
The system of Kimura, in comparison, is used for an entirely different purpose, namely to generate a statistical information reliability 141. See Kimura, at para. [0116], This reliability is a score that indicates how trustworthy the overall depth map estimation is - the reliability being high, for example, when the scene has a clear foreground and background. The reliability score is then used to correct the depth map itself, such as by blending it with a fixed-depth map. See Kimura, at para. [0180] and FIG. 13. There is no disclosure in Kimura of the detection or isolation of a specific region of interest within the image, let alone doing so by taking into account a "relative height" of a given peak as recited in Claim 1.], examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the detection of a region of interest allows the identification and isolation of an object within the image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues on remarks page 9 lines 1-11 [In making a ground of rejection of Claim 1 as previously pending, the Office Action indicates that FIG. 6 of Kimura, reprinted above, allegedly discloses the features of the second element of Claim 1. However, as noted herein, Kimura does not disclose, either explicitly or inherently, the use or even determination of a "relative height" of a peak as recited in Claim 1. While Kimura illustrates a distribution including peaks and a minimum, the reference does not define any quantitative or qualitative measure corresponding to a relative height of a peak with respect to a minimum. FIG. 6, referred to and relied upon by the Examiner as allegedly disclosing these features, is merely illustrative and does not constitute a disclosure of a specific parameter or computation. In particular, Kimura does not describe any operation involving a comparison between a peak and a minimum, nor any determination or use of a value corresponding to a relative height as recited in and necessitated by the pending claims.], examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., and does not constitute a disclosure of a specific parameter or computation. In particular, Kimura does not describe any operation involving a comparison between a peak and a minimum, nor any determination or use of a value corresponding to a relative height as recited in and necessitated by the pending claims) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues on remarks page 10 lines 21-31, [By way of non-limiting example, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's characterization of the cited art with respect to the features of dependent Claim 5. The Office Action alleges that many of the features of Claim 5 are disclosed by Kimura, but that Kimura fails to disclose sorting peaks in increasing order of their depth, and has asserted that this feature is disclosed by Kazunori. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Kazunori sorts raw pixel data/fragments for the purpose of rendering a single pixel. This is a low-level, per-pixel operation to handle occlusion. In contrast, Claim 5 recites sorting of statistical features in the form of peaks that are derived from a histogram of an entire image area. This is a macro-level analysis step for the purpose of identifying a significant object. There would be no reason to apply the fragment-sorting technique from a 3D rendering pipeline, as in Kazunori, for the purpose of sorting statistical peaks in a depth histogram for the purposes of image detection.], examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., In contrast, Claim 5 recites sorting of statistical features in the form of peaks that are derived from a histogram of an entire image area. This is a macro-level analysis step for the purpose of identifying a significant object.) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In view of the above examiner maintains the rejections made in the last office action.
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.
Applicant further argues on remarks page
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, 7-12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al., (US20130215107) hereafter Kimura.
Regarding claim 1, Kimura discloses a method (fig 6, paras 0031, 0035-0037, 0108 – 0122 and 0247-0249 shows and discloses a method) comprising:
obtaining at least one distribution of pixels, according to depth of the pixels, in a first area of an image (fig 6 element 61, paras 0031, 0035-0037 meets the first area of an image and fig 6 shows
PNG
media_image1.png
442
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the at least one distribution of the pixels according to the depth of the pixels in the regions showing the person and the background as seen in fig 6 meeting the above claim limitations); and
detecting at least one region of interest in said first area of the image (fig 6 element 61 meets the first area of an image) taking into account, for at least a first peak in said at least one distribution of pixels, a relative height of said first peak in relation to a highest minimum among at least one local minimum MP
PNG
media_image2.png
405
299
media_image2.png
Greyscale
lying between said first peak and another peak PF
PNG
media_image3.png
465
251
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in said at least one distribution of pixels higher (peak PF in said distribution of pixels is higher than the first peak) than said first peak (peak (highest point) in the region indicated by dots meets the limitations of said first peak).
2. Regarding claim 2, Kimura discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying said first area of the image; and obtaining a depth map of said first area of the image (fig 6 element 61 (depth map information) with identified first area meeting the above claim limitations of further comprising: identifying said first area of the image; and obtaining a depth map of said first area of the image).
3. Regarding claim 3, Kimura discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said detecting of at least one region of interest takes into account a depth of said first peak (fig 6 shows the depth of the lower peak meeting the claim limitations wherein said detecting of at least one region of interest takes into account a depth of said first peak).
4. Regarding claim 7, Kimura discloses the method of claim 1, wherein said at least one distribution of pixels is (fig 6 shows a continuous distribution meeting the claim limitations).
PNG
media_image4.png
200
390
media_image4.png
Greyscale
5. Claim 8 is a corresponding recording medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Paras 0247-0249 discloses a recording medium readable by a computer on which there is recorded a computer program comprising instructions to execute the steps of a method.
6. Claim 9 is a corresponding device claim of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Paras 0247-0249 discloses a device (apparatus) comprising one or more processors (i.e computer has the hardware processor configured together or separately to perform the steps) meeting the claim limitations.
7. Claim 10 is a corresponding device claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
8. Claim 11 is s corresponding device claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
9. Regarding claim 12, Kimura disclose the device of claim 9, the one or more processors being configured together or separately to: determine relative heights of said peaks in said at least one distribution of pixels (fig 6 shows determining relative heights of said peaks in said at least one distribution of pixels,
PNG
media_image1.png
442
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
examiner notes that as seen in fig 6 two peaks are seen in the at least one distribution of the pixels meeting the above claim limitations, examiner also notes that the specifics of determining relative heights are not required by the current claim); and detect at least one region of interest in said first area of the image taking into account said determined relative heights (fig 6 element 61 (depth map information) with identified first area meeting the above claim limitations of detect at least one region of interest in said first area of the image taking into account said determined relative heights).
10. Regarding claim 16, Kimura discloses the device of claim 9, wherein said one or more processors are further configured together or separately to detect at least one region of interest in said first area of the image taking into account said determined relative height (fig 6 element 61 (depth map information) with identified first area meeting the above claim limitations of detect at least one region of interest in said first area of the image taking into account said determined relative height meeting the above claim limitations).
11. Claim 17 is s corresponding recording medium claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
12. Claim 18 is s corresponding recording medium claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
13. Claim 19 is a corresponding method claim of claim 12. See the corresponding explanation of claim 12.
14. Regarding claim 20, Kimura disclose the method of claim 1, wherein the region of interest corresponds to an object of interest in said first area of the image (fig. 6, paras 0016 and 0075 shows and discloses wherein the region of interest corresponds to an object of interest in said first area of the image).
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 (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.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of TSUCHIMOCHI KAZUNORI (JPH09190548A) hereafter KAZUNORI.
15. Regarding claim 5, Kimura disclose the method of claim 1, wherein said detecting of at least one region of interest comprises: determining a relative height of said peaks in said at least one distribution of pixels (fig 6, shows a relative height of said two peaks); sorting said peaks in (figs 6, shows the highest peak on the left with a second lower peak on the right (i.e in decreasing order)); and selecting, as said first peak, a peak for which the following depth-ordered peak has a lower relative height (figs 6, shows the second peak with lower relative height meeting the claim limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kimura is silent and however fails to disclose the increasing order of the depths. KAZUNORI discloses sorting the depths in the increasing order in para 0014. Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, KAZUNORI and Kimura are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a high quality and accurate method/device at paras 0006, 0014. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of KAZUNORI in the method/device of KIMURA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
16. Regarding claim 15, Kimura disclose the device of claim 12, wherein detecting of said at least one region of interest comprises: sorting said peaks in (figs 6, shows the highest peak on the left with a second lower peak on the right (i.e in decreasing order)); and selecting, as said first peak, a peak for which the following depth-ordered peak has a lower relative height (figs 6, shows the second peak with lower relative height meeting the claim limitations).
PNG
media_image1.png
442
654
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kimura is silent and however fails to disclose the increasing order of the depths. KAZUNORI discloses sorting the depths in the increasing order in para 0014. Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, KAZUNORI and Kimura are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a high quality and accurate method/device at paras 0006, 0014. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of KAZUNORI in the method/device of KIMURA to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 13-14, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights