DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
The present application, amendments filed on 06/05/2026 have been entered in full. Claims 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 remain pending in this application. The amendments to the claims have overcome each and every U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously presented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, and 11-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-9, filed 06/05/2026, with respect to the U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11, and 12 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11, and 12 has been withdrawn. The 101 rejection is withdrawn as features of the amendment integrate the judicial exception into practical application by providing specific technical improvement.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 recites “reference range or more” which refers to more than the reference range. Correct to recite “reference range or more than the range” to provide clarity.
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 2, 4-7, and 13 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the averaging processing" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the averaging processing" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the averaging processing" in lines 4, 5, 10, and 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the averaging processing" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected due to their dependency on the rejected 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.
Claims 1 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ebiyama US20160125268 (included in IDS) (hereinafter “Ebiyama”).
Regarding claim 1, Ebiyama teaches an image processing apparatus comprising (see paragraph 0024, image processing system):
at least one memory storing instructions (see paragraph 0073, a memory storage medium storing program code [instructions]);
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see paragraph 0072-0073, a processor executing programs [instructions] stored in the memory):
acquire a plurality of images acquired by photographing the same location at different timing (see paragraph 0035, the image input unit receives inputs of frame images, where the frame images are captured with an image capturing device at different time points. See paragraph 0028 and Figure 1, frame images t-1 and t show multiple frames where the person is still thus, and the frame is the same thus the location is the same);
compare at least two of the plurality of images, and select a target region being a region where a difference between the two images is equal to or less than a first criterion (see paragraph 0036-0037, compare the background images of respective time windows and identify a static object [target region] having a difference equal to or smaller than the threshold value); and
generate a combined image by averaging, based on a pixel unit, pixel values of the target region included in each of the at least two images and excluding a non-target region other than the target region (see paragraph 0109, the image generation unit generates the images by calculating an average of each pixel of the static areas of the respective input images. See paragraph 0113, generating images based on the static area [target region]).
Claims 11 and 12 are analogous to claim 1, thus claims 11 and 12 are analyzed and rejected similar to claim 1.
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 2, 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiyama in view of Mao US 11809998 (hereinafter “Mao”).
Regarding claim 2, Ebiyama teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to (see paragraph 0072-0073, a processor executing programs [instructions] stored in the memory),
until determining that the average processing is completed for the region of the reference range or more within the image (see paragraph 0109, calculating an average of values of each pixel of the static area of the respective input images in each of the first- and second-time span [paragraph 0039, the area is excluded from processing when less than predetermined ratio [reference range], thus the averaging is completed for more than the reference range]. The averaging of each pixel in the static area is interpreted as the completion of the averaging processing),
compare the at least two images (see paragraph 0037, comparing multiple frames), and
repeat the average processing (see Figure 4, where the image generation unit [the image generation unit includes calculating an average, thus can be repeated, see 0109] is included in a loop).
Ebiyama does not teach determine whether the averaging is finished for the region of a reference range or more and compare the at least two images by changing a combination of the images to be compared.
Mao teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (see col 31 lines 17-20, the processor of the device can execute instructions),
to determine whether the averaging is finished for the region of a reference range or more (see col 72 lines 36-48, a process is terminated when its operation is complete, where the operations of the process include averaging as part of the smoothing [col 62 lines 43-47, the process 1200 includes smoothing], thus it is determined when the averaging is completed),
until determining that the average processing is completed for the region of the reference range or more within the image (see col 72 lines 36-48 and col 39 lines 49-53, calculating averages of frames of the complete dataset and terminating the operation upon completion),
compare the at least two images by changing a combination of the images to be compared (see col 39 lines 49-53, calculating averages of different subsets from the complete dataset), and
repeat the averaging process (see col 39 lines 49-53, calculating averages of different subsets from the complete dataset).
Ebiyama and Mao are analogous art because they are from the same field of an image capturing and processing system for surveillance that use multiple images from different times to extract a region.
Before the effective filling data of the inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Ebiyama to incorporate the changing of the combination of images to be compared as taught by Mao. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform smoothing to that less drastic changes take place in portions of the data (Mao, Col 39 lines 40-55).
Regarding claim 4, Ebiyama teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Ebiyama does not teach the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to apply a weight to the image by using a difference from the latest image on a time axis, when performing the average processing.
Mao teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to apply a weight to the image by using a difference from the latest image on a time axis, when performing the average processing (see col 39 line 61 through col 40 line 20, the calculation of a weighted averaging of the data with the use of subtracting data points of the latest window time [latest on a time-axis]).
PNG
media_image1.png
92
176
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
60
238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Ebiyama and Mao are analogous art because they are from the same field of an image capturing and processing system for surveillance that use multiple images from different times to extract a region.
Before the effective filling data of the inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Ebiyama to apply a weight to the image by using a difference from the latest image on a time axis, when performing the average processing as taught by Mao. The motivation for doing so would have been to perform succeeding rolling average that drops the previous time period value when anew time period value is added as the average of the periods time periods can used and therefore a full summation is not needed (Mao, Col 40 lines 8-14).
Regarding claim 13, Ebiyama and Mao teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Ebiyama teaches the reference range is a predetermined ratio with respect to an entire area of the image and the predetermined ratio is set to a different criterion for each predetermined area corresponding to a specific location (see paragraph 0039, the predetermined ratio is used with the ratio of number of background pixel [the entire background area of the image]. The number of pixels can differ in the background areas [the background area is predetermined by the foreground/background separation unit, 0036], thus altering the ratio which is interpreted as a different criterion for the predetermined areas).
Claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiyama in view of Mao in view US20220392081 (hereinafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claim 6, Ebiyama teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (see paragraph 0072-0073, a processor executing programs [instructions] stored in the memory) to perform the average processing (see paragraph 0109, the image generation unit generates the images by calculating an average of each pixel of the static areas of the respective input images.
Mao teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (see col 31 lines 17-20, the processor of the device can execute instructions) to perform the average processing by setting a sampling interval of the image (see Col 39 lines 56-61 perform averaging based on a sliding window that take averages over a set number of time periods, the number of time periods [sampling interval] can be based on the time between frames).
Ebiyama and Mao are analogous art because they are from the same field of an image capturing and processing system for surveillance that use multiple images from different times to extract a region.
Before the effective filling data of the inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Ebiyama to perform average processing by setting a sampling interval of the image as taught by Mao. The motivation for doing so would have been to take an average over a set number of video frames and for future use in weighting the average (Mao, Col 39 lines 45-65).
Ebiyama nor Mao teach setting a sampling interval of the image according to a condition for the region, the condition including at least one of a frequency of appearance of a moving object and a product sales status for the region.
Ryan teaches setting a sampling interval of the image according to a condition for the region, the condition including at least one of a frequency of appearance of a moving object and a product sales status for the region (see paragraph 0034, setting sampling frequency [sampling interval] based on the conditions within its field such as objects in the field. Given the sensor block changes sampling interval when motion occurs and not when there are no moving objects, the sampling interval changes based on frequency from no moving objects detected to at least one moving object detected).
Ebiyama, Mao, and Ryan are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an image capturing and processing system for monitoring objects in the frame in a sequence of frames.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mao and Ebiyama to incorporate the setting of sampling interval according to the region as taught by Ryan. The motivation for doing so would have been to set the sampling frequency to match the level of motion in view, increasing sampling when there is motion (Ryan, paragraph 0034).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiyama in view of Pan US10671857 (hereinafter “Pan”).
Regarding claim 8, Ebiyama teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Ebiyama does not explicitly teach a sampling interval of the plurality of images differs depending on a photographing target.
Pan teaches a sampling interval of the plurality of images differs depending on a photographing target (see col 10 lines 7-9, a period of time [sampling interval] is determined by analyzing sequential video frames).
Ebiyama and Pan are analogous art because they are from the same field of an image capturing and processing system for surveillance that uses multiple images from different times to extract a region.
Before the effective filling data of the inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Ebiyama to differing a sampling interval based on the photographing target as taught by Pan. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify a potential event and a corresponding period of time which the potential event lasts (Pan, Col 10 lines 4-9).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebiyama in view of Reed US20130229518 (hereinafter “Reed”).
Regarding claim 9, Ebiyama teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to (see paragraph 0072-0073, a processor executing programs [instructions] stored in the memory)
determine that the difference is equal to or less than the first criterion, when a change in hue of the image is equal to or less than a second criterion (see paragraph 0036-0037, compare the background images of respective time windows and identify a static object [target region] having a difference equal to or smaller than the threshold value. Pixel values include information of color [hue]).
Ebiyama does not teach determine that the difference is equal to or less than the first criterion, a change in brightness is equal to or more than a third criterion.
Reed teaches determine that the difference is equal to or less than the first criterion, a change in brightness is equal to or more than a third criterion (see paragraph 0035, the differing in data representation [an aspect of the data representation may include luminance or brightness] of the pixels in a first and second image that is more than a threshold and the difference between pixels may be less than a threshold).
Ebiyama and Reed are analogous art because they are from the same field of an image capturing and processing system for monitoring, that use multiple images from different times to process the image.
Before the effective filling data of the inventions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify Ebiyama to determine that the difference between pixel brightness may be more than a criterion as taught by Reed. The motivation for doing so would have been to identify motion in the area and change the illumination level (Reed, paragraph 0035).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 7 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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.
Contact information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY R. HAUK whose telephone number is (571)272-5966. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/EMILY ROSE HAUK/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
