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 .
Specification
The title of the invention: “VIDEO PROCESSING SYSTEM AND VIDEO PROCESSING METHOD” is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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), 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 is: “software processing unit” in claims 1-2 and 7-8.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 8 recites “a video processing program performing:” and thus is claimed as a software product without sufficient structural limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “program” encompasses software. “Software” does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter
The Official Gazette Notice 1351 OG 212 dated February 23, 2010, states, “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent.” “A claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.” Claim 20 recites a “a video processing program performing:” but has no definition (term is not defined in the specification or directly linked to hardware). Examiner recommends amending this term to include the term “non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions” that executes the video processing program.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Japanese Patent Application Number: JP 2000003435 (Kishi et al.) (hereinafter Kishi), in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No.: 2010/0113921 (Fear et al.) (hereinafter Fear).
Regarding claim 1, Kishi teaches a video processing system comprising: a software processing unit configured to detect an object included in at least some of input images included in an input video and extract a contour of the object; and a hardware processing circuit configured to generate mask information for clipping out the object from the input images included in the input video by using the contour extracted by the software processing unit (Kishi, para. [0018]; FIG. 1; para. [0033]; FIG. 3; para. [0019]: “The image processing apparatus according to the present embodiment detects an area showing a gradual change in density in an input image, selectively specifies this area, and forms a mask image including the specified area. Further, the mask image is superimposed on the input image to extract a portion of the input image, and the input image portion is superimposed on the background image to form a result image.”;
PNG
media_image1.png
429
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
;
“For example, as shown in FIG. 3, if the sky, clouds, walls, and the like are photographed on the background of a person in the input image 21, the concentration of those parts changes slowly. For this reason, an appropriate density range is specified (step 101), and the first reference point is specified in an empty part (step 102). By repeating the processing of steps 104 to 107, this empty portion can be extracted as a mask image. Similarly, an appropriate density range is designated for each part such as a cloud and a wall, and a reference point is designated. By repeating the processing of Steps 107 to 107, a mask image including a cloud, a wall, and the like is formed. These mask images are combined to form one mask image 22 (step 10). 9) The part overlapping the mask image 22 is deleted from the input image 21 and the remaining image part is superimposed on the background image 23 to form a result image 24 (step 110).”
PNG
media_image2.png
378
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
;
as may be seen in FIG. 3, a person is detected in the image 21, its contour is extracted and used to create a mask image 22 (white has positive person pixels, black has negative person pixels) for clipping the person out of the image, then the detected person is clipped out of the image 21 based on the mask image 22 and superimposed on a new background image 23 to create the final image 24; the hardware unit is shown in FIG. 1 above; “FIG. 2 is a flowchart showing a process of image processing in the image processing apparatus of the present embodiment” (i.e. software processing unit)).
Kishi fails to teach
wherein the software processing unit and the hardware processing circuit perform processing independently in parallel.
Fear teaches
wherein the software processing unit and the hardware processing circuit perform processing independently in parallel (Fear, para. [0060]: “In some cases, parallel computing software and specialized hardware can be used to aid in signal processing speed.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify the software processing unit and the hardware processing unit, as taught by Kishi, to perform processing independently in parallel, as taught by Fear.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that doing hardware and software in parallel for image processing speeds up task execution, lowers system latency, maximizes hardware utilization, and reduces overall power consumption; this combined design allows custom hardware accelerators to handle heavy pixel pipelines while software manages control logic simultaneously; this allows for systems to keep a steady frame rate without missing data drops; this is critical in video conferencing applications where there numerous frames of video over a period of time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kishi, with Fear, to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Kishi, in view of Fear, teaches the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein the software processing unit extracts the contour of the object using a first input image included in the input video, and the hardware processing circuit generates mask information of a second input image that arrives after the first input image included in the input video by correcting the contour extracted from the first input image or mask information generated from the first input image (Kishi, para. [0042]-[0050]; FIG. 6: “FIG. 6 shows steps 102 to 102 in FIG. 7 It is a flowchart which shows the more specific example of the process of 107. FIG. 7 is for explaining the process shown in FIG. 6, and shows each pixel in the input image. First, when the pixel 41 serving as a reference point of the input image is designated (step 102), the CPU 11 The density of the left pixel 42 falls within a predetermined density range based on the density of the pixel 41 at the reference point, and the left pixel 42 When it is confirmed that has not been scanned yet (step 301, YES), the left pixel 42 is included in the mask image (step 302), and the left pixel 42 is reset as the pixel of the reference point (step 302). 303), it is confirmed that there is a pixel that is out of the density determination target (step 304, NO), and the process returns to step 301 … f the density of the left pixel 42 is out of the predetermined density range or if the left pixel 42 has already been scanned (step 301, NO), a pixel adjacent to the pixel 41 at the reference point Is determined, and it is confirmed that scanning has not been performed yet (step 305). Furthermore, if the result of the density determination of the upper pixel is negative and the upper pixel has already been scanned (step 305, NO), the density determination is performed for the pixel adjacent to the right of the pixel 41 at the reference point. At the same time, it is confirmed that scanning has not been performed yet (step 306). If the result of the density determination of the right pixel is negative or if the right pixel has already been scanned (step 306, NO), For a pixel adjacent below the pixel 41 at the reference point, A density determination is performed, and it is confirmed that scanning has not been performed yet (step 307) … By repeating each of the steps 301 to 307, the scanning path A (shown in FIG. 7) of each pixel included in the mask image is formed … For each of the pixels adjacent to the left, upper, right, and lower sides of the pixel at the reference point, whether the result of the pixel density determination is negative or as long as the pixel has already been scanned Each of the steps 308, 309, 310, 311 is repeated, whereby the reference point sequentially traces each pixel of the scanning path A. When the process goes back to any of the pixels on the scanning path A and becomes “YES” in any of the steps 301, 305, 306, and 307, each of the steps 301 to 301 is performed. 307 is repeated again, and the mask image is updated again … As a result, in FIG. 7, the scanning paths A, B, C, D and E are sequentially formed, and the mask image is gradually expanded and updated. When the CPU 11 determines that there is no pixel out of the density determination target (step 30). 4, YES), a mask image composed of all pixels along the scanning path is formed, and this mask image is stored in the RAM 13”; a pixel 41 serves as a reference point of an input image; it is verified whether or not the density of the pixels along the scanning path falls within a prescribed concentration range, and a mask image comprising all pixels is formed along the scanning path; that is, when an image obtained by enlarging/reducing the “first input image” is referred to as a “second input image”, a corrected new mask is formed by using the contours of the “first input image” as reference points and scanning the contours of the “second input image” and the scanning path can take a “line segment”;
PNG
media_image3.png
664
397
media_image3.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding claim 3, Kishi, in view of Fear, teaches the video processing system according to claim 2, wherein the hardware processing circuit performs the correction for each predetermined line section of each input image included in the input video (Kishi, para. [0042]-[0050]; FIG. 6; see rejection of claim 2 above discussing corrected new mask formed by using the contours of the “first input image” as reference points and scanning the contours of the “second input image” and the scanning path can take a “line segment”).
Regarding claim 4, Kishi, in view of Fear, teaches the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein the mask information includes contour information by which the contour of the object is able to be specified, in an arbitrary input image included in the input video (Kishi, para. [0005]; para. [0054]; FIG. 3: “Further, whether a mask is used or an arbitrary part of an image is directly cut out, the contour line or cutout line of the mask crosses each pixel. In this case, it is not possible to accurately extract an arbitrary portion of the image along the outline or cutout line of the mask, All the pixels that are traversed by the contour line or cutout line of the mask are selected. Therefore, in practice, the outline or cutout line of the mask does not coincide with the outline of the image portion to be extracted. Further, in order to make this mismatch inconspicuous, it is necessary to blur the pixel density for all pixels crossed by the contour line or cutout line of the mask”; “Furthermore, the outline of the mask image matches the outline of the image part to be extracted, and the image part can be extracted very accurately. Therefore, there is no need to blur the density of pixels near the contour.”; see FIG. 3 in the rejection of claim 1 above showing the contour information of the person that is extracted from the input image 21 to determine to the mask image 22).
Regarding claim 5, Kishi, in view of Fear, teaches the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein the mask information is a mask image that covers areas other than the object in an arbitrary input image included in the input video (Kishi, FIG. 3; see rejection of claim 1 above showing the mask image 22 that covers the area with the person in white pixels and the rest of the background that is not the person in the image in black pixels to differentiate the object from non-objects in the mask image 22)
Regarding claim 6, Kishi, in view of Fear, teaches the video processing system according to claim 1, wherein the hardware processing circuit generates, as the mask information, a composite image in which areas other than the object are different in each input image included in the input video (Kishi, para. [0018]; FIG. 1; para. [0033]; FIG. 3; see rejection of claim 1 above; “The part overlapping the mask image 22 is deleted from the input image 21 and the remaining image part is superimposed on the background image 23 to form a result image 24 (step 110)”; see FIG. 3 showing the composite image 24 having the object detected from original input image 21 and with a different background than the original image 21 due to the mask image 22 process of removing the background).
With regards to claim 7, it recites the functions of the apparatus of claim 1, as a process. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, Kishi teaches a video processing program performing: (Kishi, para. [0016]: “The personal computer 1 includes a central processing unit (CPU) 11, a disk storage device (HDD) 12, It has a random-access memory (RAM) 13, an input / output device (I / O) 14, and the like. RAM 13 is a CP
It is used as an operation area by U11, and is used to store various data (indicating an input image, a mask image, a background image, a result image, and the like)”; the computer runs software/programs to execute its method).
With regards to the remaining limitations of claim 8, they recite functions of the apparatus of claim 1, as a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions. Thus, the analysis in rejecting claim 1 is equally applicable to claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL ADAM SHARIFF whose telephone number is 571-272-9741. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached on 571-272-3638. 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.
/MICHAEL ADAM SHARIFF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights