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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said distribution” in lines 5-8 should read “said at least one distribution”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said distribution” in line 3 should read “said at least one distribution”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said distribution” in line 3 should read “said at least one distribution”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said distribution” in lines 7-10 should read “said at least one distribution”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said distribution” in lines 6-9 should read “said at least one distribution”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 7-9 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 distribution of pixels, a relative height of said first peak in relation to a highest minimum in said distribution of pixels 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 distribution higher (peak PF in said distribution 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 distribution 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.
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of TSUCHIMOCHI KAZUNORI (JPH09190548A) hereafter KAZUNORI.
7. 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 distribution (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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 6 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
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