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 .
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, 5, 8, 9, and 12 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 states “a region” in line 3 which has previously been introduced in claim 1, which claim 2 is dependent on, leading to indefiniteness.
Claim 5 states “a value” in line 8 which has previously been introduced in claim 5, leading to indefiniteness.
Claim 8 states “a plurality of images” in line 3 which has previously been introduced in claim 1, which claim 8 is dependent on, leading to indefiniteness.
Claim 9 states “a criterion” lines 5 and 6 which has previously been introduced in claim 1, which claim 9 is dependent on, leading to indefiniteness.
Claim 12 states “a procedure” in lines 5 and 8 which has previously been introduced in claim 12, leading to indefiniteness.
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 1-9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exception, in particular an Abstract Idea falling under mental processes and mathematical concepts without significantly more. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations provide insignificant extra-solution activity and simply implementing the abstract idea on generically recited computer elements. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because acquiring images is well understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by
court decisions listed in MPEP 2106.05(d).
Step 1: the claims in question are primarily to an apparatus/system. The corresponding apparatus are congruent in scope and understood to be directed to a machine for the purposes of analysis at Step 1. (Step 1: YES)
Step 2A. Prong One: Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim
recites judicial exception (Law of Nature, a Natural Phenomenon, or an Abstract Idea). MPEP 2106.4,
subsection II, states a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or
“described” in the claim. Claim 1 at a high level recites the use of a memory (limitation A), use of a processor (limitation B), acquiring images (limitation C), compare the difference between two images to a criterion and select a region (limitation D), average two images (limitation E).
Limitation D recites the difference between two images, comparing to a threshold, and selecting a region which encompasses evaluating two images, observing the difference compare to a criterion, and providing a judgement to select a region all which could be practically performed in the human mind.
Limitation E recites averaging the regions of the images, which encompasses a simple mathematical concept that could be performed in the human mind by evaluation.
Such mental observations, evaluations, and judgements fall under mental grouping processing
(performed in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). For
example, an expert in photo analyses compare images to find the differences, compare the level of differences to a threshold, and then create a region based on the regions of the image being similar/ the difference being less than the criterion. Claim 2 at a high level recites changing the images that are compared and averaging the images until the averaging is done for an image, which encompasses judgement to select a new combination and evaluating to perform the simple math concept of averaging. For example, an expert could choose new images of a video dataset and preform averaging regions of the image. Claim 3 recites as high level that the region is made of pixels, which encompasses observation, evaluation, and judgement for the breaking down of an image into regions of pixels that could be done by the human mind. Claim 4 recites at high level of generality the performing weighted averaging based on prior image, which encompasses math concepts. Claim 5 recites at a high-level selecting image which is a judgement that could be done in the human mind, and the use of multiplication, addition, and averaging that are mathematical concepts. Claim 6 at high level recites choosing a sampling interval, which encompasses observation and evaluation that could be done by a human mind in the form of image analyses expert. Claim 7 at a high level of generality recites computing times and setting the time of the sampling interval, which encompasses observation and evaluation as the human mind could observe a video, evaluate the time until there was a change in reference value, and set the time of the sampling interval. Claim 8 recites at high level the setting of a sampling interval based on the photographed target, which encompasses evaluation which could be performed in the human mind. Claim 9 recites at high level determining a difference between image and comparing to a criterion similar to limitation D of claim 1. Claims 11 and 12 similarly contain mental processing of observing, evaluations, judgements, and opinions. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A. Prong Two: Step 2A, Prong Two of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim
as a whole integrates the recites judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or
whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying
whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
‘Additional elements’ are generally limitations are generally feature/limitations/steps recited in the
claim beyond the judicial exceptions. MPEP 2106 comprises of limitations that indicate whether or not
there is integration. MPEP 2106.05(a) improvements, (b) particular machine, (c) particular
transformation, and (e) other meaningful limitations generally concern limitation that are indicative of
integration, whereas 2106.05(d) well-understood, routine, conventional activity, (f) mere instructions to
apply, (g) insignificant extra-solution activity, and (h) field of use generally concern limitations that are
not indicative of integration. Limitation C recites “receiving” (acquiring) which amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality, and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.05(g) states insignificant extra-solution activity is generally understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely nominal or tangential addition to the claim (examples include transmitting, storing, and outputting information). Limitation A and B recite a memory and processor. The memory and processor with instructions are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on generic computer elements. The memory and processor are used to generally apply the abstract idea without limiting the memory and processor. The memory and processor are described at a high level such that it amounts to using a computer with generic elements to apply the abstract idea. Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 recite the use of a processor, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere generic computer elements to implement the abstract ideas. Claim 3 does not include additional elements beyond abstract ideas of mental processes. Claims 11 and 12 recite acquiring images similar to claim 1 and are insignificant extra solution activity. The additional elements that are present do not integrate the recited judicial exception into practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and the claims are directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A; YES)
Step 2B: Step 2B of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to
significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of
additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As explain in Step 2A,
claim 1 contain additional elements that relate to the acquiring of data and the processor and memory are merely applied to the judicial exception. The considerations of Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B
overlap, but differ in that Step 2B requires the consideration of the claim as a combination of the
limitation, see MPEP 2106.05 subsection I.A. At Step 2B, the evaluation of the insignificant extra-solution
activity takes into account whether or not the activity is well understood, routine, and conventional in
the field. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recitation of acquiring of images in claim 1, 11, and 12 is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to receiving data, which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d),subsection II. The limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9 recite the generic use of a processor without additional elements. Claim 3 does not include additional elements beyond abstract ideas of mental processes. Even when considered in combination, these additional
elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer
and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. (Step 2B: NO).
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 1-4, 8, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao US11809998 (hereinafter “Mao”) in view of Pan US10671857 (hereinafter “Pan”).
Regarding claim 1, Mao teaches an image processing apparatus comprising (see Figure 1, Image capturing and processing system 100):
at least one memory configured to store instructions (see col 31 lines, computer readable storage medium [a storage device of other mediums capable of storing or carrying instructions, see col 71 lines 54-58] storing instructions);
and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to (see col 31 lines 17-20, the processor of the device can execute instructions):
acquire a plurality of images acquired by photographing a same location at different timing (see col 9 lines 46-49, the image capture and processing system can capture multiple images in a particular sequence. The camera can be mounted still [interpreted as the same location], see col 20 lines 4-8);
perform average processing of averaging the target region included in each of the at least two images (see col 39 lines 43-55, calculating averages of different frames of the video. The averaging technique in the smoothing engine can be applied to smooth the change in the bounding box [object region]).
Mao does not teach 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 criterion.
Pan teaches acquire a plurality of images acquired by photographing a same location at different timing (see col 6, video acquiring module 220 may be implemented on camera 110 [to capture videos or images [which may be sequential, col 18 lines 30-34]. Camera 110 may be a static camera configured, which is interpreted as capturing same location images, col 3 lines 45-48);
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 criterion (see col 7 line 64 through col 8 line 4, the coordinate determination module may be configured to identify the target by detecting a change in pixel values of a pixel group between sequential frames, the coordinate determination module may determine whether the change in pixel values equals or exceeds a threshold).
Pan and Mao are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an image capturing and processing system for video surveillance that uses multiple images from different times to extract a region of the image.
Before the effective filling date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mao to incorporate the selecting of a target region by the difference between two images compared to a criterion as taught by Pan. The motivation for doing so would have been to find the position of the target or object for use for determining an event or tracking at different time points (Pan, col 7 line 64 through col 8 line 4 and col 9 lines 15-24).
Regarding claim 2, Mao and Pan teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mao teaches the at least one processor (see col 62 lines 43-51, the computer instructions are executed by the processors to perform the recited operations) is further configured to execute the instructions to, until the average processing is performed for a region of a reference range or more within the image (see col 39 lines 49-53, calculating averages of different frames, which is interpreted to be performing averaging more than a reference range [100 percent] of the image),
compare the at least two images by changing a combination of the images to be compared (see col 39 lines 49-53, using the averaging technique [comparing] different frames of the video), and
repeat the average processing (see col 39 lines 49-53, calculating averages of different frames from the video).
Regarding claim 3, Pan and Mao teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Pan teaches a unit of the region is one pixel (see col 7 lines 57-59, the target may be a pixel or a group of pixels).
Regarding claim 4, Pan and Mao teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Mao teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (see col 62 lines 43-51, the computer instructions are executed by the processors to perform the recited operations) 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
Regarding claim 8, Pan and Mao teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Pan teaches a sampling interval of a plurality of the images differs depending on a photographing target (see col 10 lines 7-9, a period of time [sampling interval] is determine by analyzing sequential video frames).
Claims 11 and 12 are analogous to the system of claim 1, thus are analyzed and rejected similar to claims 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Pan in view of Ryan US20220392081 (hereinafter “Ryan”).
Regarding claim 6, Pan and Mao teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Mao teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (see col 62 lines 43-51, the computer instructions are executed by the processors to perform the recited operations) 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).
Mao nor Pan teaches setting the sampling interval according to the region.
Ryan teaches setting the sampling interval according to the region (see paragraph 0034, setting sampling frequency based on conditions within the field of view [region]).
Pan, 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 Pan 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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao in view of Pan in view of Reed US20130229518 (hereinafter “Reed”).
Regarding claim 9, Pan and Mao teach the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Pan teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions (see col 4 lines 30-36, the processor may execute instructions to perform functions) to determine that the difference is equal to or less than a criterion, when a change in hue of the image is equal to or less than a criterion (see col 7 line 65 through col 8 line 8, detecting a change [difference] in pixels values is equal or exceeding a threshold. Pixel values include information of color [hue]).
Mao nor Pan teaches a change in brightness is equal to or more than a criterion
Reed teaches determine that the difference is equal to or less than a criterion, when a change in brightness is equal to or more than a 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 less than a threshold [criterion].
Pan, Mao, and Reed are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of an image capturing and processing system for monitoring that uses multiple images from different times to process the image.
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 Pan to incorporate the use of a change in brightness that is equal or less 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).
Examiner’s note
Please note that no prior art rejection has been made to claims 5 and 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of reference cited.
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