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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 47-66 were pending. Claims 47, 65-66 have been amended. Claim 48 has been canceled. Claim 67 has been newly added. Thus claims 47, 49-67 are currently pending including independent claims 47, 66, 67.
Specification
The objection to the specification is removed in light of the remarks and amendments filed 06/17/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 are removed in light of the remarks and amendments filed 06/17/2026.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 47, 49, 55, 60-61, 64-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohara (CN 108431866 A) in view of Vroomers ([360 Vroomers]. (2018 August 29). 360 Photo Editing: How to remove tripod or shadows on phone or desktop (with Photoshop or Affinity) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT4W7eHaN7c.).
Regarding claim 47, Kohara discloses an image processing method comprising: obtaining an original image from a photographing device ([0015]-[0016] display control device that captures an area and displays it, including an image acquisition unit which acquires images);
identifying a shadow area of a target object in the original image ([0022] determine whether the vehicle's shadow is present in the processed image; [0016] wherein the image acquisition unit (i.e. photographing device) is mounted on the vehicle (i.e. the vehicle is acts as a support apparatus of the photographing device)),
eliminating the shadow area of the target object in the original image ([0023]-[0025] use a portion of a second image which does not contain the shadow to create the output image (i.e. eliminate the portion which contains the vehicle shadow)).
Kohara fails to disclose wherein the target object includes a selfie stick connected to the photographing device.
Vroomers, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of image editing including identifying and removing shadow regions (See Figs. 1-4), discloses wherein the target object includes a selfie stick connected to the photographing device ([Timestamp 0:40] obtaining an image using a selfie stick (see Fig. 1); [Timestamp 0:53] wherein the image includes a shadow of the selfie stick (see Fig. 2); [Timestamps 2:00-2:12] removing the shadow region from the image to produce a final image (see Figs. 3a, 3b, 4)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Vroomers with Kohara wherein the target object includes a selfie stick connected to the photographing device, as disclosed by Vroomers, as part of as part of an image processing method to eliminate a shadow area of a target object, as disclosed by Kohara, for the purpose of effectively removing shadows regions of images to produce desirable output images in a cost-effective way (See Vroomers: Transcript timestamps 0:00-0:11).
Regarding claim 49, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 47 as applied above. Kohara further discloses processing the original image to determine one or more shade regions and obtain a target image with the one or more shade regions ([0059] determine whether there is a shadow in the bird's-eye view image; Fig. 2, [0087] identifying a shadow in a specific region (e.g. 41Ra) as a target image); and
performing feature recognition on the one or more shade regions to determine the shadow area of the target object (Fig. 4, [0088] recognize a direction of a light source and whether the shadow extends from the vehicle in the image (i.e. performing feature recognition) to determine whether the shadow region is a shadow of the vehicle (i.e. determine the shadow area of the target object)).
Regarding claim 55, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 49 as applied above. Kohara further discloses identifying a shadow area of a first object connected to the target object in the target image ([0088] determine whether the shadow extends from the vehicle (i.e. identify a shadow area connected to the target object); [0089] the determination is made in the region 41Ra (see Fig. 2, 4) as the target image); and
using the shadow area of the first object as an initial recognition position of the shadow area of the target object to perform the feature recognition within a certain range to determine the shadow area of the target object ([0089]-[0090] determining whether a specified number of pixels within a range of pixels along the edge of region 41Ra adjacent to the vehicle represent a shadow region).
Regarding claim 60, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 47 as applied above. Kohara further discloses obtaining a comparison image of several frames before or after a current frame of the original image ([0007] historical images are images captured in the past (i.e. several frames before) compared to the current image);
determining a corresponding part of the comparison image corresponding to the shadow area of the target object in the current frame image (Fig. 5, 6; [0095] overlaying the current image portion onto the historical image area wherein the captured (i.e. current) portion is aligned to the historical record area (i.e. determining corresponding parts)); and
replacing the shadow area of the target object in the current frame image with the corresponding part of the comparison image ([0091] utilizing a portion of the image which does not include the shadow (e.g. 41Rb) in the historical record image; [0097] the current captured bird's-eye view image is combined with a historical image to be displayed, wherein the historical record area is combined with the current capture part (i.e. such that the original shadow area in region 41Ra is no longer present)).
Regarding claim 61, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 60 as applied above. Kohara further discloses searching for a corresponding identifier in the current frame image according to the shadow area of the target object; and determining the corresponding part of the comparison image in the current frame image according to the corresponding identifier ([0090]-[0091] determining that the shadow area of the target object is within the region 41Ra (i.e. search for corresponding identifier), and identifying a corresponding region 41Rb which does not contain the shadow to be used as the historical record image for aligning the overlaid image (i.e. determine corresponding part in the comparison image)).
Regarding claim 64, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 47 as applied above. Kohara further discloses determining a covering part that matches the original image; and covering the shadow area of the target object using the covering part ([0091] utilizing a portion of the image which does not include the shadow (e.g. 41Rb) in the historical record image; [0097] the current captured bird's-eye view image is combined with a historical image to be displayed, wherein the historical record area is combined with the current capture part (i.e. such that the original shadow area in region 41Ra is no longer present)).
Regarding claim 65, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method of according to claim 47 as applied above. Kohara further discloses at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor ([0053] image processing unit including a CPU and a program stored in a memory medium).
Regarding claim 66, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 47). Kohara further discloses at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code, where the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor ([0053] image processing unit including a CPU and a program stored in a memory medium; [0054] the image processing unit also functions as the image acquisition unit).
Claim(s) 50-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohara (CN 108431866 A) in view of Vroomers ([360 Vroomers]. (2018 August 29). 360 Photo Editing: How to remove tripod or shadows on phone or desktop (with Photoshop or Affinity) [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT4W7eHaN7c.) in further view of Khan (S. Khan, M. Narvekar, T. Fansupkar and U. Maghrabi, "Shadow Removal using Multi-Channel Binarization, Color-Line Clustering and Illumination Estimation," 2021 4th Biennial International Conference on Nascent Technologies in Engineering (ICNTE), NaviMumbai, India, 2021, pp. 1-6, doi: 10.1109/ICNTE51185.2021.9487716.).
Regarding claim 50, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 49 as applied above. Kohara fails to disclose processing the original image using a simplification process to determine the one or more shade regions.
Khan, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of detecting and removing shadow regions automatically (Abstract), discloses processing the original image using a simplification process to determine the one or more shade regions (Fig. 3; pg. 3, para. 2: detecting shadows involves binarization (i.e. simplification of the image)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Khan with Kohara and use a simplification process to determine the one or more shade regions, as disclosed by Khan, as part of an image processing method to eliminate a shadow area of a target object, as disclosed by Kohara in view of Vroomers, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and reducing necessary manual work for removing shadows from images, which helps in improving understanding of image contents (See Khan: Abstract, Conclusion).
Regarding claim 51, Kohara in view of Vroomers and Khan discloses the image processing method according to claim 50 as applied above. Kohara fails to disclose wherein the simplification process includes a binarization process.
Khan, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of detecting and removing shadow regions automatically (Abstract), discloses wherein the simplification process includes a binarization process (Fig. 3; pg. 3, para. 2: detecting shadows involves binarization (i.e. simplification of the image).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Khan with Kohara and use a binarization process as the simplification process, as disclosed by Khan, as part of an image processing method to eliminate a shadow area of a target object, as disclosed by Kohara in view of Vroomers, for the purpose of increasing efficiency and reducing necessary manual work for removing shadows from images, which helps in improving understanding of image contents (See Khan: Abstract, Conclusion).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 52-54, 56-59, 62-63 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 67 is allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 52, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 49 as applied above. Kohara further discloses performing the feature recognition on an entire area of the target image to determine the shadow area of the target object (Fig. 4, [0088] recognize a direction of a light source and whether the shadow extends from the vehicle in the image (i.e. performing feature recognition on the target image (e.g. region 41Ra)) to determine whether the shadow region is a shadow of the vehicle (i.e. determine the shadow area of the target object)).
However, neither Kohara nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses performing an image segmentation process on the original image to determine a position of the target object and a contour map including the target object, determining a connected shade region connected to the contour of the target object from the at least one shade regions according to the at least one shade regions and the contour map, and performing the feature recognition on the connected shade region to determine the shadow area of the target object.
Claims 53-54 are dependent on claim 52 and thus incorporate similarly allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 56, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 55 as applied above. However, neither Kohara nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses identifying at least two key features of a second object in the original image, the first object being a part of the second object; according to physical positions and shadow positions of the at least two key features of the second object, determining a mapping relationship between the physical positions and shadow positions of the key features; and based on the mapping relationship and a physical position of the first object, determining the shadow area of the first object in the target image.
Claim 57 is dependent on claim 56 and thus incorporates similarly allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 58, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 47 as applied above. However, neither Kohara nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses detecting difference of pixels around the shadow area of the target object; and eliminating the shadow area of the target object in the original image according to the difference of the pixels around the shadow area of the target object.
Claim 59 is dependent on claim 56 and thus incorporates similarly allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 62, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 47 as applied above. However, neither Kohara nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses obtaining a preset gesture and a hand holding the target object in the original image; processing the preset gesture according to the hand holding the target object in the original image to obtain a processed gesture; and replacing the hand holding the target object in the original image with the processed gesture.
Regarding claim 63, Kohara in view of Vroomers discloses the image processing method according to claim 47 as applied above. However, neither Kohara nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses obtaining a hand area holding the target object in the original image; and blurring the hand area.
Regarding claim 67, Kohara discloses an image processing method comprising: obtaining an original image ([0015]-[0016] display control device that captures an area and displays it, including an image acquisition unit which acquires images);
identifying a shadow area of a target object in the original image, wherein the target object includes the photographing device or a support apparatus of the photographing device ([0022] determine whether the vehicle's shadow is present in the processed image; [0016] wherein the image acquisition unit (i.e. photographing device) is mounted on the vehicle (i.e. the vehicle is acts as a support apparatus of the photographing device)).
However, neither Kohara nor any obvious combination of the closest known prior art discloses wherein identifying the shadow area of the target object in the original image includes: processing the original image to determine one or more shade regions and obtain a target image with the one or more shade regions; and performing feature recognition on the one or more shade regions to determine the shadow area of the target object, including: performing an image segmentation process on the original image to determine a position of the target object and a contour map including the target object, determining a connected shade region connected to the contour of the target object from the one or more shade regions according to the one or more shade regions and the contour map, and performing the feature recognition on the connected shade region to determine the shadow area of the target object.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/17/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 47 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kohara in view of Vroomers under 35 U.S.C. 103, as stated above.
Applicant asserts on page 12 that “Kohara does not disclose or suggest that 'identifying a shadow area of a target object in the original image, wherein the target object includes a selfie stick connected to the photographing device' and 'eliminating the shadow area of the target object in the original image,' as recited in amended claim 47". Examiner agrees. However, amended claim 47 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as stated above as being obvious over Kohara in view of Vroomers.
Applicant further asserts on page 12 that "applicant respectfully submits that Khan also fails to disclose or suggest the above-quoted elements of claim 47, and thus does not cure the deficiencies of Kohara." Examiner agrees. However, amended claim 47 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as stated above as being obvious over Kohara in view of Vroomers.
Applicant further asserts on page 13-14 that "the cited references do not disclose or suggest 'performing an image segmentation process on the original image to determine a position of the target object and a contour map including the target object, determining a connected shade region connected to the contour of the target object from the one or more shade regions according to the one or more shade regions and the contour map, and performing the feature recognition on the connected shade region to determine the shadow area of the target object,' of claim 67". Examiner agrees. Claim 67 is allowed as stated above.
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 CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights