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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a feature point detection tracking unit”, “a feature point movement amount calculation unit”, “a determination unit” in claim 1.
“a feature point detection area setting unit” in claim 2.
“a size calculation unit” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 10-16, are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 10, lines 1-3, recites “A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer- executable program instructions that when executed by a processor cause a computer to execute a program generation method comprising:”, however should recite “A computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer- executable program instructions that when executed by a processor cause a computer to execute a the method comprising:”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims 11-16, objected based on their dependency on the objected claim and inherent the same deficiency.
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 10-16, 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 10, recites the limitation "the clipped frame" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-16, rejected based on their dependency on the rejected claim and inherent the same deficiency.
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(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 10-12, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misawa (US PGPUB 2020/0228726 A1) and further in view of Noguchi (US PGPUB 2011/0211038 A1).
As per claim 1, Misawa discloses an image processing device for outputting a frame at a timing when a predetermined part of an object is displaced by a predetermined amount (as a clipped frame) from a moving image formed by a plurality of frames and capturing the object while a viewpoint is moved (Misawa, please see Fig. 5 and Fig. 7, and related description), the device comprising:
a feature point detection tracking unit that detects a feature point in a first frame that is a frame at a first time, tracks the feature point from the first time to a second time later than the first time, and calculates a two-dimensional vector indicating a motion of the feature point (Misawa, Fig. 5, and paragraph 66);
a feature point movement amount calculation unit that calculates a movement amount of the feature point based on the calculated two-dimensional vector (Misawa, paragraphs 66 and 71); and
Misawa does not explicitly disclose a predetermined part of an object is displaced by a predetermined amount as a clipped frame from a moving image;
a determination unit that determines whether the calculated movement amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, and outputs a second frame as the clipped frame, the second frame being a frame at the second time, when the movement amount is determined to be equal to or greater than the threshold value.
Noguchi discloses a predetermined part of an object is displaced by a predetermined amount as a clipped frame from a moving image (Noguchi, Figs. 5-12, and related description);
a determination unit that determines whether the calculated movement amount is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold value, and outputs a second frame as the clipped frame, the second frame being a frame at the second time, when the movement amount is determined to be equal to or greater than the threshold value (Noguchi, Figs. 4-13, and related description).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Misawa teachings by implementing a control circuit to the system, as taught by Noguchi.
The motivation would be to provide an improved imaging technique to inhibit blurring of the scene image (paragraph 32), as taught by Noguchi.
As per claim 2, Misawa in view of Noguchi further discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a feature point detection area setting unit that sets a feature point detection area that is an area where the feature point is detected in the frame (Misawa, please see Fig. 7), wherein the feature point detection tracking unit detects and tracks the feature point in the set feature point detection area (Misawa, paragraphs 66 and 81).
As per claim 3, Misawa in view of Noguchi further discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the feature point detection tracking unit calculates, in a case where the plurality of feature points are detected in the first frame, the two-dimensional vector for each of the plurality of detected feature points (Misawa, paragraphs 66 and 81), and the feature point movement amount calculation unit calculates an average value of magnitudes of the two-dimensional vectors calculated for each of the plurality of feature points as the movement amount (Misawa, paragraphs 66 and 81).
As per claim 5, Misawa in view of Noguchi further discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the feature point movement amount calculation unit calculates the movement amount using only a vector component in a specific direction among vector components of the two- dimensional vector (Noguchi, paragraph 46 and 55).
As per claim 8, please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 10, Misawa discloses a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium storing computer- executable program instructions that when executed by a processor cause a computer to execute a program generation method (Misawa, paragraph 24) comprising:
For rest of claim limitations please see the analysis of claim 1.
As per claim 11, please see the analysis of claim 2.
As per claim 12, please see the analysis of claim 3.
As per claim 14, please see the analysis of claim 5.
Claim(s) 6, and 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misawa (US PGPUB 2020/0228726 A1) and further in view of Noguchi (US PGPUB 2011/0211038 A1) and further in view of Wang (EP 3232371 A1).
As per claim 6, Misawa in view of Noguchi further discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the feature point movement amount calculation unit divides the frame into a plurality of areas (Noguchi, Figs. 9-12), and
Misawa in view of Noguchi does not explicitly disclose adjusts a magnitude of two-dimensional vector according to an area including the two- dimensional vector.
Wang discloses adjusts a magnitude of two-dimensional vector according to an area including the two- dimensional vector (Wang, paragraphs 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Misawa teachings by implementing a control circuit to the system, as taught by Noguchi.
The motivation would be to improve the accuracy of object recognition (paragraph 18), as taught by Wang.
As per claim 15, please see the analysis of claim 6.
Claim(s) 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Misawa (US PGPUB 2020/0228726 A1) and further in view of Noguchi (US PGPUB 2011/0211038 A1) and further in view of Kuhn (US PGPUB 2008/0043848 A1).
As per claim 21, Misawa in view of Noguchi further discloses the image processing device according to 1, wherein Misawa in view of Noguchi does not explicitly disclose a synthetic vector of the two-dimensional vectors is calculated from a first time to a second time for one feature point.
Kuhn discloses a synthetic vector of the two-dimensional vectors is calculated from a first time to a second time for one feature point (Kuhn, paragraphs 147-148).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Misawa teachings by extracting motion parameters, as taught by Kuhn.
The motivation would be to provide motion estimation with reduced cost and time (paragraph 159), as taught by Kuhn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, and 17-20, 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: Claims 13 and 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and also by overcoming the objections and the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection as being set forth above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 EST.
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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633