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: “an object color estimator”, “a shadow estimator” in claim 1. And “a feature amount extractor” in claim 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 Objections
Claim 6, objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 6, lines 1-2, recites “the base color”, however should recite "a base color of the N base colors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7, objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 7, lines 1-2, recites “the base color”, however should recite "a base color of the N base colors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 8, lines 1-2, recites “the base color”, however should recite "a base color of the N base colors”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 14-15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choi (KR 20100117976 A, English Translation of the KR is being attached herewith and used for citation below, hereinafter Choi).
As per claim 1, Choi discloses an image processing apparatus (Choi, Fig. 1) comprising:
an object color estimator that estimates an object color image having a color component of an object included in an input image as a pixel value on a basis of a feature amount of the input image (Choi, please see page 5, which discloses The difference image generation unit 110 detects an object area and a shadow area from the image by subtracting the estimated background from the input image); and
a shadow estimator that estimates a shadow image having a shadow component of the input image as a pixel value on a basis of the feature amount of the input image (Choi, page 5, discloses a shadow region from the input image),
wherein the shadow estimator estimates the shadow image by limiting a color space that is available by the shadow component of the input image to a color space determined under a predetermined color condition (Choi, pages 3-4, discloses calculate a chromaticity distortion range value using the average and standard deviation to determine whether the corresponding pixel is a shadow or an object, further please note the ”range” is a limitation based on colors).
As per claim 2, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein N base colors (N>1) are given as the predetermined color condition (Choi, Fig. 4, shows 3 base colors), and
the shadow estimator estimates the shadow image by limiting the color space that is available by the shadow component of the input image to a color space expressed by the N base colors (Choi, Fig. 4, and page 7).
As per claim 14, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising a feature amount extractor that extracts the feature amount of the input image (Choi, page 5).
As per claim 15, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein processing of inputting the object color image estimated by the object color estimator as the input image to the feature amount extractor is repeatedly performed until a predetermined end condition is satisfied (Choi, pages 4-5).
As per claim 19, please see the analysis of claim 1.
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) 6-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100117976 A) and further in view of Park (NPL Document: Simple shadow removal using shadow depth map and illumination-invariant feature” hereinafter Park, Provided by the Applicant in IDS filed on 12/03/2024).
As per claim 6, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the Choi does not explicitly disclose base color is given by a color temperature.
Park discloses base color is given by a color temperature (Park, section 1.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi teachings by performing a shadow detection, as taught by Park.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system for visual scene analysis (Abstract), as taught by Park.
As per claim 7, Choi in view of Park further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the base color is given by xy coordinate values on an xy chromaticity diagram (Park, Abstract and section 1.2).
As per claim 8, Choi in view of Park further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the base color is given by a color parameter of RGB (Choi, page 3).
Claim(s) 9-10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100117976 A) and further in view of Liu (US PGPUB 2016/0227100 A1).
As per claim 9, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the Choi does not explicitly disclose color space determined under the predetermined color condition is a space based on a commission on illumination (CIE) daylight model.
Liu discloses color space determined under the predetermined color condition is a space based on a commission on illumination (CIE) daylight model (Liu, paragraph 56).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi teachings by implementing a model to the system, as taught by Liu.
The motivation would be to reduce differences in color as ambient lighting conditions change (paragraph 56), as taught by Liu.
As per claim 10, Choi in view of Liu further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a basis function of the CIE daylight model is given as the predetermined color condition (Liu, paragraph 56).
Claim(s) 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100117976 A) and further in view of Maxwell (US PGPUB 2007/0242878 A1).
As per claim 12, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the Choi does not explicitly disclose predetermined color condition is an imaging time of the input image.
Maxwell discloses predetermined color condition is an imaging time of the input image (Maxwell, paragraph 106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi teachings by setting an imaging timing of camera, as taught by Maxwell.
The motivation would be to improve shadow property determination (paragraph 30), as taught by Maxwell.
Claim(s) 18, and 20-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (KR 20100117976 A) and further in view of Berger (US PGPUB 2023/0169739 A1).
As per claim 18, Choi further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein Although Choi discloses object color estimator and the shadow estimator as being explained above, however Choi does not explicitly disclose a convolutional neural network (CNN) predictor using a parameter obtained by learning processing is used for the object color estimator and the shadow estimator.
Berger discloses a convolutional neural network (CNN) predictor using a parameter obtained by learning processing is used for the object color estimator and the shadow estimator (Berger, paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi teachings by implementing a neural network to the system, as taught by Berger.
The motivation would be to provide an improved electronic device where overall amount of system resources needed to accomplish a task is reduced (paragraph 17-18), as taught by Berger.
As per claim 20, Chois discloses all the claim limitations as being explained with respect to claim 1, and also discloses processing circuitry (Choi, Fig. 1); however Choi does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry causes the processing circuitry to: estimate, by a convolutional neural network (CNN) predictor using a parameter obtained by learning processing,
Berger discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing thereon executable instructions which when executed by the processing circuitry causes the processing circuitry (Berger, paragraphs 133 and 153) to: estimate, by a convolutional neural network (CNN) predictor using a parameter obtained by learning processing (Berger, paragraph 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Choi teachings by implementing a neural network to the system, as taught by Berger.
The motivation would be to provide an improved electronic device where overall amount of system resources needed to accomplish a task is reduced (paragraph 17-18), as taught by Berger.
As per claim 21, Choi in view of Berger further discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 20, wherein the learning processing includes using object color images and shadow images as training images (Berger, paragraphs 35 and 100).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 11, 13, and 16-17, 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.
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
Prosecution Insights