DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 21, 2026.
Claims 1-10 and 13-14 remain under consideration.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 20, 2024; November 6, 2024; February 18, 2025; and September 22, 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 CAPTURING UNIT GROUP BACKGROUND IMAGE UPDATE SETTING APPARATUS, METHOD AND STORAGE MEDIUM.
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 capturing units” in claims 1, 13 and 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 § 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) 1-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘Handa’ (US 2019/0356906 A1) in view of ‘Ito’ (US 2021/0312638 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Handa teaches an image processing apparatus (e.g., Figures 1-3 and 27, Image processing system including camera adapters) comprising:
one or more hardware processors (e.g., Figs. 2-3 and 27, Image Processors 06130 of the various camera adapters; e.g., Fig. 49, [0470] et seq., CPU 1201 of camera adapter); and
one or more memories storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more hardware processors (e.g., [0471], Fig. 49, RAM 1203 and/or ROM 1202), the one or more programs including instructions for:
obtaining a plurality of captured images obtained by image capturing of a plurality of image capturing units (e.g., [0101], each camera adapter’s image processor 06130 receives image data from an associated camera and other adapters; e.g., Fig. 26, images are captured by plural different cameras 112; Note that the term “image capturing units” is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) [see Claim Interpretation above] and the corresponding structure includes cameras – see, e.g., Figs. 1 and 7);
extracting foreground regions from the plurality of captured images by a background difference method (e.g., [0372], Fig. 35B, extraction of foreground at S05007 based on background difference at S05005; also see, e.g., [0111]-[0113]); and
generating background images used in the background difference method while updating the background images based on the plurality of captured images (e.g., [0368]-[0370], Fig. 35A), wherein
in the generating, the background images are updated according to an update method of the background images set for each of groups (see Note Regarding Groups below) to which the plurality of image capturing units are classified based on targets of interest of the respective image capturing units in the image capturing (e.g., [0321] et seq., Figs. 26-27 cameras 112 and associated adapters 120 are grouped based on what targets of interest they are capturing, such as Group A for target 06302A and Group B for target 06302B), by using the captured images obtained by one or a plurality of the image capturing units included in the group (e.g., [0369], Fig. 35A, S05004, captured images are used to update the background).
Note Regarding Groups. Handa teaches an update method set to update background images for cameras “in a certain rate” (Fig. 35A, [0369]). Handa also teaches separating its image capturing units [i.e., cameras] into different groups depending on what targets/objects they are capturing (e.g., Fig. 26). Nevertheless, Handa does not explicitly teach that an update method is “set for each of [the] groups” as recited in claim 1. Instead, while acknowledging that other update methods may be used ([0370]), Handa only describes one update method that is apparently set for all cameras (Fig. 35A).
However, Ito does teach setting different background updating methods for cameras depending on what targets/objects they are capturing (e.g., Figs. 3-4, background update method is set based on update timing 406 and enable setting 405; e.g., [0026], updating method is set based on a particular object being captured by a camera, such as an injured player).
Ito teaches that its ability to set different background updating methods for different objects (i.e., capturing targets of interest) is beneficial because it allows for proper foreground extraction for a variety of different types of objects, such as motionless or slowly moving objects (e.g. [0044]).
Examiner notes that the cameras in Handa are grouped according to what object they are capturing (e.g., Fig. 26). Accordingly, if Handa were to be modified to set background updating methods for different objects (e.g., an injured player) as taught by Ito, then those updating methods would be set for each of the groups of cameras, as required by the claimed invention.
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 Handa with the object/target-based updating method setting of Ito in order to improve the apparatus with the reasonable expectation that this would result in an apparatus that could properly extract foregrounds of a variety of different objects/targets, including those that were motionless or relatively slowly moving. This technique for improving the apparatus of Handa 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 Handa and Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ito further teaches that the update method is set based on a user operation through a UI screen (Fig. 4 shows UI screen, including controls for update method based on UI elements 405 and 406).
Regarding claim 3, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus of claim 2, and Ito further teaches that a speed at which the background images are updated is set as the update method based on the user operation through the UI screen (e.g., Fig. 4, background update timing is set at element 406 of UI screen; e.g., [0043], the background update timing sets speed at which the background images are updated, such as every 1800 frames or once every 30 seconds for 60-fps video).
Regarding claim 4, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, and Ito further teaches that the speed at which the background images are updated is set for each of the groups to which the image capturing units are classified (e.g., [0046], timing may be set depending on the image capturing target; As explained above with respect to claim 1, in Handa in view of Ito the groups correspond to different image capturing targets; also see, e.g., [0044]).
Regarding claim 5, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, and Ito teaches that the speed at which the background images are updated is set for units in which a game captured by the plurality of image capturing units progresses (e.g., [0026], an update method may be adjusted for a unit of a game, such as a free kick, an injury, or another certain period of time during progression of the game where a player is motionless; Note that a disabled mode can be considered to correspond to an update speed of 0; Also note that re-enabling updates after a motionless period further adjusts the update speed to a higher, non-zero level for a subsequent unit of the game).
Regarding claim 6, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein one of
a stop mode in which the update of the background images is stopped (e.g., Fig. 3, S305, and Fig. 4, 405, mode where background update is disabled/not allowed),
an instant mode in which the background images are instantly updated at first speed (e.g., [0037], Fig. 4, background image update timing specification window 406 allows any number to be entered; If background update is enabled at 405 and a value of 1 is entered in window 406, then the background images will be updated instantly for each frame – i.e., decision at S303 in Fig. 3 is always YES),
a high-speed mode in which the background images are updated at second speed lower than the first speed (The range of possible values that can be entered into 406 can be arbitrarily divided into different low-, mid-, and high-speed ranges; In a non-limiting example, a value of “per 600 frame” could be considered a second speed lower than the first speed; Note that the number of frames is inversely proportional to the speed, such that a higher number of frames is indicative of a lower speed, and vice versa),
a mid-speed mode in which the background images are updated at third speed lower than the second speed (Continuing the non-limiting example from above, a mid-speed of “per 1200 frame”), and
a low-speed mode in which the background images are updated at fourth speed lower than the third speed (Continuing the non-limiting example from above, a low-speed of “per 1800 frame”)
is set as the speed at which the background images are updated (Fig. 4 and mapping above).
Regarding claim 7, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein, in the case where the instant mode is set (i.e., if background update is enabled at element 405 and a value of “1” is entered at element 406 of Fig. 4), in the generating, the captured images obtained by the image capturing of the image capturing units are directly reflected in the background images (e.g., Fig. 4, if timing value is 1, then decision at S303 is always YES, so the captured images at S301 are immediately reflected in the background images generated at S304).
Regarding claim 8, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus of claim 2 (see above).
Handa further teaches that using partial regions in the captured images obtained by the image capturing of the image capturing units in the updating of the background images is set as the update method (e.g., [0371], Figs. 34C and 35D).
Handa does not explicitly teach that this partial region background update method is set “based on the user operation through the UI screen.”
However, Handa does teach controlling the operation of its apparatus based on user operation through a UI screen (e.g., Figs. 41-42) and Ito also teaches setting a background update method based on user operation through the UI screen (e.g., Fig. 4).
One of ordinary skill in the art seeking to implement the apparatus of Handa in view of Ito as applied above would require some means of configuring and controlling the partial region background update method taught by Handa. The teachings of Handa and Ito demonstrate that user operation through a UI screen provides a suitable means for such configuration and control of background update methods.
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 Handa in view of Ito as applied above to further set its partial region background update method based on user operation through the UI screen in order to improve the apparatus with the reasonable expectation that this would result in an apparatus that used a suitable means for configuring and controlling its partial region background update method. This technique for improving the apparatus of Handa in view of Ito was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Handa and Ito.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Handa and Ito to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Handa further teaches that each of the plurality of image capturing units is classified into one of the groups associated with an elevation angle of the each of the plurality of image capturing units in the image capturing (e.g., [0459], cameras are grouped according to gazing point and panning/tilting (PT) controls are set for each group, such as a “lens low angle”; Note that camera tilting corresponds to control of an elevation angle of the camera; For at least this reason, the groups of cameras are within the scope of being associated with an elevation angle of the each of the plurality of image capturing units in the image capturing).
Regarding claim 10, Handa in view of Ito teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, and Ito further teaches that one of
an update cycle at which the background images are updated (e.g., Fig. 4, element 406, update cycle is 1800 frames),
determination time in which whether each of pixels of the captured images is the background image or not is determined (e.g., [0043], Fig. 4, element 406, per 1800 frames can be seen as an update timing, such as once in every 30 seconds for 60 fps video),
a determination cycle at which whether each of pixels of the captured images is the background image or not is determined (e.g., [0021], update settings include “the timing to update the background image”), and
a determination threshold of the background images (e.g., [0021], update settings include “the background generation threshold”)
is set as the update method.
Regarding claim 13, Examiner notes that the claim recites a method that is substantially the same as the method performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Handa in view of Ito teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (see above). Accordingly, claim 13 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa in view of Ito for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Examiner notes that the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium that is substantially the same as the one or more memories in the apparatus of claim 1. Handa in view of Ito teaches the apparatus of claim 1 (see above). Accordingly, claim 14 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Handa in view of Ito for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Conclusion
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
