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 .
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 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.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of Japanese patent application number 2022-051164, filed on March 28, 2022, has been received and made of record.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (lDS) submitted on September 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered by the Examiner.
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: “clipping execution unit”, “camera control parameter determination unit”, “camera control unit”, “image analysis unit”, “clipping target determination unit”, and “clipping region calculation”, in claims 1-14.
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 § 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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because they are directed to a program, which does not fall within one of the four categories of statutory subject matter, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Although a program may be stored in a storage medium, the storage medium is not positively recited, that is, the claim is directed to a program, and not a storage medium storing a program. Programs/software is nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests amending the claim to recite “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing an image processing program…”.
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 7 and 10 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 7 recites the limitation "the image analysis unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes that claim 7 should be amended to depend from claim 3 in order to provide proper antecedent support. The Examiner also notes that for purposes of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the image analysis unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiner believes that claim 10 should be amended to depend from claim *** in order to provide proper antecedent support. The Examiner also notes that for purposes of examination, the claims will be examined as best understood by the Examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ashitani Satoshi (JP 2016-219905). The Examiner also notes, with respect to Ashitani, that for purposes of examination, the Examiner will refer to the machine translation.
In regard to claim 1, note Ashitani discloses an image processing device (figure 1: 1000) comprising a clipping execution unit that generates a clipped image obtained by clipping a partial region from a captured image by a camera (paragraphs 0025, 0030, 0033; a set region is clipped), a camera control parameter determination unit that determines a camera control parameter optimum for the clipped image (paragraphs 0030-0032; control parameters are determined for the clipping region), and a camera control unit that causes the camera to execute image capturing to which the camera control parameter determined by the camera control parameter determination unit is applied (paragraphs 0030-0032; after determining the control parameters based on the clipping region, the camera captures an image using the determined parameters).
In regard to claim 2, note Ashitani discloses that the camera control parameter determination unit determines a camera control parameter of at least one of focus, exposure, white balance (WB), shutter speed, or aperture optimum for the clipped image (paragraphs 0031-0032).
In regard to claim 11, note Ashitani discloses that the camera control parameter determination unit determines a focus control parameter so that a main subject of the clipped image is in focus (paragraphs 0031-0032).
In regard to claim 12, note Ashitani discloses that the camera control parameter determination unit determines control parameters of exposure and white balance (WB) optimum for an image of the clipped image (paragraphs 0031-0032).
In regard to claim 13, note Ashitani discloses that the camera control parameter determination unit determines an optimum shutter speed control parameter according to motion of a main subject in the clipped image (paragraphs 0031-0033, 0097-0103; the parameters, including shutter speed are set based on the detected motion of the subject).
In regard to claim 17, this is a method claim, corresponding to the apparatus in claim 1. Therefore, claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1. Additionally, Ashitani discloses an image processing method (paragraphs 0013, 0106).
In regard to claim 18, this is directed to a program for causing an information processing device to execute the corresponding operation of the information processing device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1. Additionally, Ashitani discloses a program for causing the operation of the processing device (paragraphs 0014, 0106).
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 3-8, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashitani Satoshi (JP 2016-219905)), in view of Rui et al. (US Patent 7,580,054).
In regard to claim 3, note the primary reference of Ashitani discloses an image processing device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose an image analysis unit that executes analysis processing of a captured image by the camera, wherein the image analysis unit executes detection processing of a subject to be included in the clipped image from the captured image by the camera.
In analogous art, Rui discloses an imaging system that includes an image analysis unit that executes analysis processing of a captured image by the camera, wherein the image analysis unit executes detection processing of a subject to be included in the clipped image from the captured image by the camera (column 8, lines 10-48, column 9, lines 4-22, and figure 4: 440; the image data is analyzed to determine where the subjects are and select a clipping region of the image corresponding to each). Rui teaches that the use of an image analysis unit that executes analysis processing of a captured image by the camera, wherein the image analysis unit executes detection processing of a subject to be included in the clipped image from the captured image by the camera is preferred in order to identify participants, and track each of them, for viewing selection during on demand viewing (column 8, lines 10-48, column 9, lines 4-22, column 10, lines 34-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference an image analysis unit that executes analysis processing of a captured image by the camera, wherein the image analysis unit executes detection processing of a subject to be included in the clipped image from the captured image by the camera, in order to identify participants, and track each of them, for viewing selection during on demand viewing, as suggested by Rui.
In regard to claim 4, note Rui discloses that the image analysis unit executes detection processing of a person or detection processing of a face region to be included in the clipped image (column 9, lines 4-22).
In regard to claim 5, note Rui discloses that the clipping execution unit generates a clipped image including a subject detected by the image analysis unit (column 9, lines 4-22).
In regard to claim 6, note Rui discloses that the clipping execution unit generates a clipped image including a person region or a face region detected by the image analysis unit (column 9, lines 4-22).
In regard to claim 7, note Rui discloses that the image analysis unit includes a clipping target determination unit that determines a subject to be included in a clipped image generated by the clipping execution unit, and the clipping target determination unit executes processing of determining at what angle of view a subject to be clipped is to be clipped (column 8, lines 10-48, column 9, lines 4-22; the angle of view of each determined target region is selected based on the identified subject).
In regard to claim 8, note the primary reference of Ashitani discloses that the clipping target determination unit executes clipping target determination processing by an operator or clipping target determination processing using AI analysis (paragraphs 0025-0030, and figure 2; the user of the client device can select the clipping targets).
In regard to claim 10, note Rui discloses that the image analysis unit includes a clipping region calculation unit that calculates a clipping image region of a clipped image generated by the clipping execution unit, and the clipping region calculation unit calculates a position and a size of the clipped image in the captured image (column 8, lines 10-48, column 9, lines 4-22; the position and size of each determined target region is selected based on the identified subject).
In regard to claim 16, note the primary reference of Ashitani discloses an image processing device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose a display unit that displays a GUI including a display region of a captured image by the camera and a clipping image candidate display region for displaying a candidate image of a clipped image, wherein the GUI is a GUI that enables selection of a clipped image to be output from among a plurality of clipping image candidates displayed in the clipping image candidate display region.
In analogous art, Rui discloses an imaging system that includes a display unit that displays a GUI including a display region of a captured image by the camera and a clipping image candidate display region for displaying a candidate image of a clipped image, wherein the GUI is a GUI that enables selection of a clipped image to be output from among a plurality of clipping image candidates displayed in the clipping image candidate display region (column 7, lines 47-49, column 10, line 25 – column 11, line 40, figures 3-4: 350, and figure 5: 520; the GUI can display the captured image region with candidate regions available for selection to capture/display). Rui teaches that the use of a display unit that displays a GUI including a display region of a captured image by the camera and a clipping image candidate display region for displaying a candidate image of a clipped image, wherein the GUI is a GUI that enables selection of a clipped image to be output from among a plurality of clipping image candidates displayed in the clipping image candidate display region is preferred in order to give the user the ability to choose which region is selected for display (column 10, line 25 – column 11, line 40). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include a display unit that displays a GUI including a display region of a captured image by the camera and a clipping image candidate display region for displaying a candidate image of a clipped image, wherein the GUI is a GUI that enables selection of a clipped image to be output from among a plurality of clipping image candidates displayed in the clipping image candidate display region, in order to give the user the ability to choose which region is selected for display, as suggested by Rui.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashitani Satoshi (JP 2016-219905)), in view of Rui et al. (US Patent 7,580,054), and further in view of Vaezi Joze et al. (US Pub. 2023/0133854).
In regard to claim 9, note the primary reference of Ashitani in view of Rui discloses an image processing device, as discussed with respect to claim 7 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the clipping target determination unit executes clipping target determination processing by using AI analysis using at least one of a machine learning model or a rule-based model.
In analogous art, Vaezi Joze discloses an imaging system that performs clipping target determination by using AI analysis using at least one of a machine learning model or a rule-based model (paragraphs 0029-0033, and figure 5: 508-510). Vaezi Joze teaches that performing clipping target determination by using AI analysis using at least one of a machine learning model or a rule-based model is preferred in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the detection of targets (paragraphs 0001-0003, 0029). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the clipping target determination unit executes clipping target determination processing by using AI analysis using at least one of a machine learning model or a rule-based model, in order to improve the accuracy and efficiency of the detection of targets, as suggested by Vaezi Joze.
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashitani Satoshi (JP 2016-219905)), in view of Misawa (US Pub. 2011/0002678).
In regard to claim 14, note the primary reference of Ashitani discloses an image processing device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the camera control parameter determination unit determines a control parameter for aperture adjustment in consideration of a distance between a main subject and a non-main subject in the clipped image.
In analogous art, Misawa discloses an imaging device that determines a control parameter for aperture adjustment in consideration of a distance between a main subject and a non-main subject in the image (paragraph 0005; the aperture can be adjusted based on the distances between the subjects depending on the desired image composition). Misawa teaches that determining a control parameter for aperture adjustment in consideration of a distance between a main subject and a non-main subject in the image is preferred in order to control the image capture for the desired image composition, i.e., to capture either a portrait image having a primary subject in focus, or an image having both subjects in focus (paragraph 0005). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the camera control parameter determination unit determines a control parameter for aperture adjustment in consideration of a distance between a main subject and a non-main subject in the clipped image, in order to control the image capture for the desired image composition, i.e., to capture either a portrait image having a primary subject in focus, or an image having both subjects in focus, as suggested by Misawa.
In regard to claim 15, note Misawa discloses that the control parameter for aperture adjustment is an F-number (paragraph 0005; the relationship between the focal length and aperture size are considered to be the F-number).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2006/0284991: note the use of an imaging system that performs image analysis to detect facial regions and perform capture control of shutter, aperture, focus, and white balance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 PM.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at (571) 272-7372. 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.
/CHRISS S YODER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638