DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species of the first embodiment in the reply filed on September 10, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 7-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 10, 2026. Claims 1-6 and 15-20 remain under consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on August 30, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the 2023-140269 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Examiner notes the priority document exchange failure status report dated January 30, 2025, in the application file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 16, 2024; September 19, 2024; and April 24, 2025, are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: IMAGE FOREGROUND REGION DIVISION AND TRANSMISSION APPARATUS, METHOD AND SYSTEM.
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:
the “image processing apparatus …” of claim 20, and
the “generation apparatus …” of claim 20.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
“A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description.” MPEP 2181, Subsection IV. As explained below, claim 20 includes a means-plus-function limitation that has been found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function. Therefore, claim 20 also lacks adequate written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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.
Claim 20 is 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 limitation “generation apparatus configured to generate a three dimensional data based on the data transmitted from the image processing apparatus” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph – see Claim Interpretation above.
However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A review of the specification finds par. [0025] (as published) to be the most relevant. It is reproduced below:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This portion of the specification generally restates the function of the generation apparatus by stating that “the generation apparatus 200 generates, based on the foreground image, a foreground model representing the three-dimensional shape of the object.” However, the specification does not describe any algorithm for performing this function.
The “generation apparatus …” of claim 20 is apparently computer-implemented – see, e.g., [0029] of the published specification. “[A] rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor.” MPEP 2181, subsection II.B. Claim 20 is indefinite because it recites a computer-implemented functional claim limitation, but no algorithm is described in the specification.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by ‘Kamariotis’ (US 2005/0185045 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kamariotis discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions (e.g., [0194]); and
one or more processors that execute the instructions (e.g., [0194]; [0057], Figure 1, processors 21 and 22) to:
detect a foreground region from an input image (e.g., [0061]-[0066], background subtraction is performed to yield a binary mask indicating a foreground region in an input image);
obtain a plurality of divided regions by dividing the foreground region (e.g., [0084], Fig. 7, division of the frame – including the foreground region – into slices);
determine a circumscribed rectangle for one of the plurality of divided regions (e.g., [0083]-[0097], Figs. 8-10, left and right limits are found for each slice, thereby determining a circumscribed rectangle formed by the top, bottom, left and right of the foreground within a given divided slice); and
transmit data of the input image corresponding to the circumscribed rectangle (e.g., [0172]-[0173], object region corresponding to the circumscribed rectangle in each slice is encoded and transmitted; also see, e.g., Fig. 12 and [0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate a foreground mask image representing the foreground region (e.g., the “binary differentiated frame” at [0066] is a binary foreground mask).
Regarding claim 3, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the plurality of divided regions are obtained by dividing the foreground mask image (e.g., Fig. 8, the foreground mask image [which shows the foreground in black and the background in white] is divided by slicing), and
the circumscribed rectangle is determined based on the divided foreground mask image (e.g., Figs. 8-10, left and right bounds of the foreground mask are found in each slice, thereby determining circumscribed rectangles for each slice).
Regarding claim 4, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of divided regions are obtained by dividing the foreground region in a horizontal direction, a vertical direction, or into a grid-like pattern (e.g., Figs. 7-8, the slicing division is at least in a horizontal direction because the slice seams extend horizontally [i.e., left to right] across the image and foreground).
Regarding claim 5, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of divided regions are obtained by dividing the foreground region in accordance with a predetermined spacing (e.g., Fig. 7, [0084], slices are divided with predetermined spacing of 16 pixels).
Regarding claim 6, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to determine the predetermined spacing (e.g., [0084], spacing is set to have “a width equal to the width of a macro-block”; i.e., the predetermined spacing is determined based on the macro-block width).
Regarding claim 16, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein data of the input image which does not correspond to the circumscribed rectangle is not transmitted (e.g., [0057], [0172], [0168], Fig. 12, only macroblocks overlapping/corresponding to the portions of the slices between the boundaries [i.e., the circumscribed rectangle] are transmitted; Macroblocks outside the object rectangles are not transmitted).
Regarding claim 17, Kamariotis discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 16, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to transmit data of a background region in the input image (e.g., Fig. 12, white regions are background regions that are transmitted because they are included in macroblocks that also include foreground object regions).
Regarding claim 19, Examiner notes that the claim recites a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Kamariotis discloses the apparatus of claim 1 (see above). Accordingly, claim 19 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kamariotis for substantially the same reasons as 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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamariotis in view of ‘Hannuksela’ (US 2007/0183676 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Kamariotis teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2.
Kamariotis uses background subtraction to calculate a foreground mask (e.g., [0061]-[0066]). Kamariotis further teaches using the MPEG-4 standard to transmit image data of an object corresponding to circumscribed rectangle (see mapping above and, e.g., [0057], [0172], and Fig. 12).
Nevertheless, Kamariotis does not explicitly teach transmitting data of the foreground mask corresponding to the circumscribed rectangle.
However, Hannuksela does teach further details of how the MPEG-4 standard is used to transmit image data of an object, including that a binary foreground mask of that object is further transmitted (e.g., [0013], a video object may be represented as a binary alpha map – i.e., a binary foreground mask of the object – that is encoded for transmission).
Hannuksela teaches that binary objects defined by a binary foreground mask are the simplest class of objects that can be defined in MPEG-4 ([0013]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kamariotis with the binary-mask-based MPEG-4 object encoding of Hannuksela in order to improve the apparatus with the reasonable expectation that this would result in an apparatus that used the coding standard suggested by Kamariotis to provide the object encoding required by Kamariotis in a manner that was advantageously simpler (i.e., less complex) than other alternatives. This technique for improving the apparatus of Kamariotis was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kamariotis and Hannuksela.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kamariotis and Hannuksela to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamariotis in view of ‘Ito’ (US 2020/0202157 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Kamariotis teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Kamariotis transmits image data for any circumscribed rectangle including foreground pixels (e.g., [0168], Fig. 12).
Kamariotis does not teach that, in a case where an area of the circumscribed rectangle is smaller than a threshold value, data of the input image corresponding to the circumscribed rectangle is not transmitted.
However, Ito does teach a technique for transmitting foreground image data in circumscribed rectangles (e.g., Fig. 3), where, in a case where an area of a circumscribed rectangle is smaller than a threshold value, data of the input image corresponding to the circumscribed rectangle is not transmitted (e.g., [0044], Fig. 3, S1004).
Ito teaches that excluding rectangles with less than a threshold area “enables noise to be eliminated” ([0044]). Noise is a concern in almost any image processing technique, including in Kamariotis’ (e.g., [0004], [0064]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus of Kamariotis with the area-based rectangle exclusion of Ito in order to improve the apparatus with the reasonable expectation that this would result in an apparatus that could better eliminate noise. This technique for improving the apparatus of Kamariotis was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Ito.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kamariotis and Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 18.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamariotis in view of ‘Shikata’ (US 2018/0232943 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Examiner notes that the claim recites an image processing system comprising:
an image processing apparatus that is substantially the same as the image processing apparatus of claim 1, and
a generation apparatus configured to generate a three dimensional data based on the data transmitted from the image processing apparatus.
Kamariotis teaches the image processing apparatus of claim 1 (see above).
The scope of the generation apparatus is unclear (see ‘112(b) rejection above), but Kamariotis does not teach generating 3D data.
However, Shikata does teach what apparently falls within the scope of a generation apparatus (e.g., Fig. 8, image generation apparatus 200) configured to generate a three dimensional data based on image foreground data transmitted from an image processing apparatus (e.g., Fig. 9, [0078]-[0083], received foreground image data are processed, using an MBR technique, to generate a 3D model and use it to generate a virtual viewpoint image).
Kamariotis’s technique allows only presenting one viewpoint to a user (e.g., Fig. 1). In contrast, Shikata’s virtual viewpoint technique is advantageous because it allows free movement of a user to multiple viewpoints (e.g., [0004]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Kamariotis with the generation apparatus of Shikata in order to improve the system with the reasonable expectation that this would result in a system that advantageously allowed a user to freely move to multiple viewpoints, rather than restricting them to a single viewpoint. This technique for improving the system of Kamariotis was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Shikata.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Kamariotis and Shikata to obtain the invention as specified in claim 20.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
‘Kalva’ (US 2025/0227255 A1)
See Figs. 4A-F
‘Lucas’ (US 2019/0088005 A1)
See splitting image into billboards at Figs. 4-5
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY E SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-9915. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM ET.
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.
/GEOFFREY E SUMMERS/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights