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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on a Patent Applications filed on 3/30/22. It is noted that Applicant has filed a certified copy of the application as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention. Regarding the claimed ‘apparatus’ of Claim 20, it is noted that the published disclosure of the specification contains the language ‘the present disclosed technology is realized by the software configuration… a combination of a hardware configuration and a software configuration may be used” (US Pub. No.: 2025-0024124 [0212-0214]). As evidenced by the specification it appears that said claimed apparatus is capable of reading on software and as such does not fall into any statutory class of invention. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” to be performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2):
(a) Novelty; Prior Art.— A person shall be entitled to a patent unless: (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.
(b) Exceptions: (2) Disclosures appearing in applications and patents.— A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if: (A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; (B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or (C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
Claims 1, 3, 13, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (Pub. No: US 2010-0235336).
As per Claim 1 KIM discloses An information processing method comprising (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [Abstract]):
a linking step of linking first imaging processing of generating a first image file including first image data obtained by imaging a first subject (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 link via adding information from first image file from imager 120 of a person first subject [0046-0049] [0052] [0070]) with second imaging processing of generating a second image file including second image data obtained by imaging a second subject (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [0046-0049] second image file retrieved generated from controller 110 containing the retrieved second image of an imaged second subject with accompanying information [0052] [0070]);
an acquisition step of acquiring first subject information related to the first subject (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 camera 200 [0070] forms captured data first subject and accompany information [0046-0049]);
and an assignment step of including the first subject information in second accessory information recorded in the second image file to assign the first subject information to the second image file (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [0046-0049] [0052] camera 200 for first image information added to the second image file as assignment - the link for the first image to the second image file [0070]).
As per Claim 3 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein first accessory information recorded in the first image file and the second accessory information include information in common with each other (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [Abstract] recognized person common information [0049] [0070]).
As per Claim 13 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein the first subject and the second subject are common subjects (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [Abstract] recognized person same subject matter [0049] [0070]).
As per Claim 20 KIM discloses An information processing apparatus comprising (Figs. 1-4, 7-9): a processor, wherein the processor is configured to (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [0086]): link first imaging processing of generating a first image file including first image data obtained by imaging a first subject with second imaging processing of generating a second image file including second image data obtained by imaging a second subject (See said analysis for Claim 1); acquire first subject information related to the first subject (See said analysis for Claim 1); and include the first subject information in second accessory information recorded in the second image file to assign the first subject information to the second image file (See said analysis for 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (Pub. No: US 2010-0235336) in view of SHIMIZU (Pub. No: US 2021-0390712).
As per Claim 2 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein,
in the acquisition step, second subject information related to the second subject is acquired as information included in the second accessory information (Figs. 1-4, 7-9 [0046-0049] [0052] camera 200 for first image information added to the second image file as assignment - the link for the first image to the second image file [0070]),
KIM does not disclose but SHIMIZU discloses and in the assignment step, the second subject information is included in first accessory information recorded in the first image file to assign the second subject information to the first image file (Figs. 1-5 second frames captured with accompany metadata file with accessory timing [0023] [0029] assigned to each corresponding frame for first and second captured for respective subject matter for the respective created image files [0041-0042]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and in the assignment step, the second subject information is included in first accessory information recorded in the first image file to assign the second subject information to the first image file as taught by SHIMIZU into the system of KIM because of the benefit taught by SHIMIZU to include an image processing system specific for moving image data capture from different image capturing devices, each with accompanying metadata whereby KIM discloses different image processes but silent on accompanying metadata and would therefore benefit by the additional layer of processing distinction included in SHIMIZU.
As per Claim 4 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
KIM does not disclose but SHIMIZU discloses the first image data is moving image data configured of a plurality of first frames, and first accessory information recorded in the first image file includes first time information related to a corresponding first frame (Figs. 1-5 first and second frames captured with accompany metadata file with accessory timing assigned to each corresponding frame [0023] [0029] [0041-0042]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 2 applies equally to Claim 4).
As per Claim 6 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
KIM does not disclose but SHIMIZU discloses the second image data is moving image data configured of a plurality of second frames, and the second accessory information includes second time information related to a corresponding second frame (Figs. 1-5 second frames captured with accompany metadata file with accessory timing [0023] [0029] assigned to each corresponding frame for first and second captured [0041-0042]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 6).
As per Claim 8 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
KIM does not disclose but SHIMIZU discloses first accessory information recorded in the first image file includes information related to a first imaging apparatus that performs the first imaging processing (Figs. 1-5 accessory timing assigned to each corresponding frame by the image processing apparatus performing the capture [0023] [0029] [0041-0042]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 4 applies equally to Claim 8).
Claims 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (Pub. No: US 2010-0235336) in view of SHIMIZU (Pub. No: US 2021-0390712), as applied in Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and further in view of SICCONI et al. (Pub. No: US 2019-0213429).
As per Claim 10 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 8, wherein
KIM and SHIMIZU do not disclose but SICCONI discloses the information related to the first imaging apparatus includes first position information related to a position of the first imaging apparatus (Figs. 4, 10 [Abstract] cameras positioned first and second front and rear of vehicle – capture information relates to that camera feed [0062-0063] [0070]), first direction information related to an imaging direction of the first imaging apparatus (either or), or distance information related to a distance between the first imaging apparatus and a second imaging apparatus that performs the second imaging processing (either of).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the information related to the first imaging apparatus includes first position information related to a position of the first imaging apparatus, first direction information related to an imaging direction of the first imaging apparatus, or distance information related to a distance between the first imaging apparatus and a second imaging apparatus that performs the second imaging processing as taught by SICCONI into the system of KIM and SHIMIZU because of the benefit taught by SICCONI to expand upon the related systems of KIM and SHIMIZU directed towards multiple capture processing pipelines by including positional information of said multiple capture processing devices to improve upon relation intelligent processing of multiple camera capture systems to improve upon the reliability and capacity for multiple camera image processing.
As per Claim 11 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 8, wherein
KIM and SHIMIZU do not disclose but SICCONI discloses the second accessory information includes information related to a second imaging apparatus that performs the second imaging processing (Figs. 4, 10-12 [Abstract] front and rear camera associated respective data for the camera image processing [0062-0063] [0070-0073] [0141-0142]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 10 applies equally to Claim 11).
Claims 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al. (Pub. No: US 2010-0235336) in view of SICCONI et al. (Pub. No: US 2019-0213429).
As per Claim 17 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
KIM does not disclose but SICCONI discloses the first subject and the second subject are different subjects (Fig. 10 [Abstract] vehicle with rear pointing camera attached and with front point camera attached to capture different subjects [0062-0063] [0070]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 10 applies equally to Claim 17).
As per Claim 18 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 17, wherein
KIM does not disclose but SICCONI discloses a first imaging apparatus that performs the first imaging processing and a second imaging apparatus that performs the second imaging processing are attached to a vehicle (Figs. 4, 10 [Abstract] vehicle with rear pointing camera attached and with front point camera attached to capture different subjects [0062-0063] [0070]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 17 applies equally to Claim 18).
As per Claim 19 KIM discloses The information processing method according to claim 1, wherein
KIM does not disclose but SICCONI discloses the first image file is a first moving image file including first moving image data as the first image data, and the second image file is a second moving image file including second moving image data as the second image data (Figs.10-12 cameras front and rear shoot video [0070] [0072-0073] [0141-0142]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 17 applies equally to Claim 19).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 7, 9, 12, 14-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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.
Claims 5, 7, 9, 12, 14-16 is/are allowed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 4, wherein, in the assignment step, the first time information is included in the second accessory information to assign the first time information to the second image file" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 6, wherein, in the assignment step, the second time information is included in first accessory information recorded in the first image file to assign the second time information to the first image file" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 8, wherein, in the assignment step, the information related to the first imaging apparatus is included in the second accessory information to assign the information related to the first imaging apparatus to the second image file" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 12 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 11, wherein, in the assignment step, the information related to the second imaging apparatus is included in the first accessory information to assign the information related to the second imaging apparatus to the first image file" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 13, wherein, in the first imaging processing, a first sensor that images the first subject is used, in the second imaging processing, a second sensor that images the second subject is used, and a first output result output from the first sensor and a second output result output from the second sensor have different types from each other" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 15 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 14, wherein one of the first output result and the second output result is visible light image data obtained by imaging visible light, and the other of the first output result and the second output result is invisible light image data obtained by imaging light in a wavelength range higher than or lower than a wavelength range of the visible light" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 16 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The information processing method according to claim 14, wherein one of the first output result and the second output result is visible light image data obtained by imaging visible light, and the other of the first output result and the second output result is distance image data obtained by performing distance measurement" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record KIM et al. (Pub. No: US 2010-0235336) for Claims 5, 7, 9, 12, 14-16 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. KIM only discloses linking first imaging processing of generating a first image file including first image data obtained by imaging a first subject with second imaging processing of generating a second image file including second image data obtained by imaging a second subject, acquiring first subject information related to the first subject, and including the first subject information in second accessory information recorded in the second image file to assign the first subject information to the second image file.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is 571-270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 8:30-5:00 EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481