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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 88 of the specification currently includes a typo which should be corrected: “When the region of interest is set int unis of image groups…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 10, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 10, and 15 currently include a typo in the last limitation which should be corrected: “wherein the converted image represents an image that a position of the ROI group is moved or a copped image generated to comprise the ROI group in the image.”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 6 is 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 6 currently recites “The method of claim 6, wherein…” where it is unclear what the claim dependency is for claim 6. It is assumed, based on the corresponding decoding claim 14 (which is dependent on claim 13), that claim 6 should be dependent on claim 5. Appropriate correction is required to clarify the limitations inherited by this claim.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yoon et al. (US 2022/0301181; hereinafter “Yoon”).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon discloses a method of encoding an image based on a region of interest (ROI), the method comprising (see Fig. 1):
setting a ROI group, including the region of interest, in the image ([0047-0049], Yoon discloses using an object detection network to establish bounding boxes over objects of interest.);
converting the image based on the ROI group ([0047-0049], Yoon discloses generating a foreground image based on the bounding boxes.); and
encoding a converted image ([0067], Yoon discloses encoding a foreground image.),
wherein the converted image represents an image that a position of the ROI group is moved or a copped image generated to comprise the ROI group in the image ([0049-0050], Yoon discloses generating a foreground image by removing portions of the background image and only retaining the objects of interest.).
Claim 15 is the non-transitory computer readable storage medium claim corresponding to claim 1, and is similarly rejected (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when a plurality of regions of interest are present in the image, the ROI group is a minimum-sized rectangular region comprising the plurality of regions of interest (Figs. 3-4, [0094], Yoon discloses changing the bounding box of two boxes representing two wheels into one bounding box encompassing both wheels.).
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 2 and 10-11 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Lu et al. (US 2011/0096990; hereinafter “Lu”).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon discloses the method of claim 1.
Yoon does not explicitly disclose wherein the method further comprises encoding a metadata for the converted image, and wherein the metadata comprises a flag indicating whether the image is converted based on the ROI group or not.
Lu discloses wherein the method further comprises encoding a metadata for the converted image, and wherein the metadata comprises a flag indicating whether the image is converted based on the ROI group or not ([0032-0037], Lu discloses a background ignored identifier which is encoded alongside an image in the metadata, which indicates if only a ROI region is encoded or if the whole image is encoded.).
Yoon and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of encoding and decoding images based on a region of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon to include the background ignored identifier disclosed by Lu. The motivation for this combination being the ability to note if an image has been modified prior to encoding, which is beneficial when decoding the image.
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon discloses a method of decoding an image based on a region of interest (ROI), the method comprising (see Fig. 1):
decoding an image from a bitstream ([0083], Yoon discloses decoding a foreground image.);
image represents an image that a position of the ROI group is moved or a copped image generated to comprise the ROI group ([0084], Yoon discloses decoding a foreground and background image, and consequently merging (i.e., restoring) the two images to generate a final merged image.).
Yoon does not explicitly disclose determining whether a decoded image is an image converted based on the region of interest; and in response to the decoded image being a converted image, generating a restored image (italicized for context).
Lu discloses determining whether a decoded image is an image converted based on the region of interest; and in response to the decoded image being a converted image, generating a restored image (italicized for context) ([0032-0037], Lu discloses a background ignored identifier which is encoded alongside an image, and consequently based on the background ignored identifier an image is decoded to either include a reconstructed region of interest or to include the whole original image.).
Yoon and Lu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of encoding and decoding images based on a region of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon to include the decision logic based on the background ignored identifier disclosed by Lu. The motivation for this combination being the ability to mark an image to note when the image has been modified prior to encoding, which is useful information during the decoding process.
Regarding Claim 11, Yoon in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 10, wherein based on a flag decoded from the bitstream, it is determined whether the decoded image is the converted image or not ([0032-0037], Lu discloses a background ignored identifier which is encoded alongside an image, and consequently based on the background ignored identifier an image is decoded to either include a reconstructed region of interest or to include the whole original image.).
Claims 3, 5-6, and 12-14 are rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Lu in view of Krishnan (US 2019/0379893; hereinafter “Krishnan”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein when the flag is encoded with a value indicating that the image is converted based on the ROI group (see the combination made in claim 2),
Yoon in view of Lu does not explicitly teach information representing an original position of the ROI region is further encoded.
Krishnan discloses information representing an original position of the ROI region is further encoded ([0024], [0034], Krishnan discloses encoding ROI parameters which relate to the size, location, and shape of the ROI, which are used to decode and restore the original image.).
Yoon, Lu, and Krishnan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of encoding and decoding images based on a region of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon in view of Lu to further include the encoding of ROI parameters disclosed by Krishnan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to store additional metadata regarding the ROI, which may be beneficial to the decoding process.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 2, wherein when the flag is encoded with a value indicating that the image is converted based on the ROI group (see the combination made in claim 2),
Yoon in view of Lu does not explicitly teach information representing a size of the ROI group or a size of the cropped image is further encoded.
Krishnan discloses information representing a size of the ROI group or a size of the cropped image is further encoded ([0024], [0034], Krishnan discloses encoding ROI parameters which relate to the size, location, and shape of the ROI, which are used to decode and restore the original image.).
Yoon, Lu, and Krishnan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of encoding and decoding images based on a region of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon in view of Lu to further include the ROI parameters disclosed by Krishnan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to store additional metadata regarding the ROI, which may be beneficial to the decoding process.
The Examiner notes that for the analysis for Claim 6, it is assumed that claim 6 is dependent on claim 5 (as opposed to claim 6 as currently presented) based on how the analogous decoding claim (claim 14) is dependent on claim 13)
Regarding Claim 6, Yoon in view of Lu in view of Krishnan teaches the method of claim [[6]] 5, wherein information representing a size difference between the cropped image and the image is further encoded ([0024], [0034], Krishnan discloses encoding ROI parameters which relate to the size, location, and shape of the ROI, which further includes pixel offsets between the modified and original image.).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoon in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein when the flag indicates that the decoded image is the converted image (see the combination made in claim 11),
Yoon in view of Lu does not explicitly teach information representing the original position of the ROI group is additionally decoded.
Krishnan discloses information representing the original position of the ROI group is additionally decoded ([0024], [0034], Krishnan discloses encoding ROI parameters which relate to the size, location, and shape of the ROI, which are used to decode and restore the original image.).
Yoon, Lu, and Krishnan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of encoding and decoding images based on a region of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon in view of Lu to further include the ROI parameters disclosed by Krishnan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to store additional metadata regarding the ROI, which may be beneficial to the decoding process.
Regarding Claim 13, Yoon in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 11, wherein when the flag indicates that the decoded image is the converted image (see the combination made in claim 11),
Yoon in view of Lu does not explicitly teach information representing a size of the ROI group or a size of the cropped image is additionally decoded.
Krishnan discloses information representing a size of the ROI group or a size of the cropped image is additionally decoded ([0024], [0034], Krishnan discloses encoding ROI parameters which relate to the size, location, and shape of the ROI, which are used to decode and restore the original image.).
Yoon, Lu, and Krishnan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of encoding and decoding images based on a region of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon in view of Lu to further include the ROI parameters disclosed by Krishnan. The motivation for this combination being the ability to store additional metadata regarding the ROI, which may be beneficial to the decoding process.
Regarding Claim 14, Yoon in view of Lu in view of Krishnan teaches the method of claim 13, wherein information representing a size difference between the cropped image and the restored image is additional decoded ([0024], [0034], Krishnan discloses encoding ROI parameters which relate to the size, location, and shape of the ROI, which further includes pixel offsets between the modified and original image. This information is then further decoded to restore the original information.).
Claim 4 is rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Lu in view of Adobe in a Minute (“How to Move Objects and People in Photoshop CC (Fast Tutorial)”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugN9yY5KdL4, Publication Date: 9/15/2016; hereinafter “Adobe in a Minute”) in view of Atsumi and Farvardin (EP1732029; hereinafter “Atsumi”).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoon in view of Lu teaches the method of claim 3.
Yoon in view of Lu does not explicitly teach wherein information representing a moved potion of the ROI region is further encoded.
Adobe in a Minute discloses (see 0:12-0:30, Adobe in a Minute discloses defining a region of interest. See 0:40-0:50, Adobe in a Minute discloses moving the selected region of interest.).
Yoon, Lu, and Adobe in a Minute are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of manipulating images with identified regions of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon in view of Lu such that the plurality of regions of interest which are identified by Yoon in view of Lu are moveable based on the disclosure presented by Adobe in a Minute. The motivation for this combination being the ability to further provide a different way in which an image can be modified.
Yoon in view of Lu in view of Adobe in a Minute does not explicitly teach wherein information representing a moved potion of the ROI region (italicized for context) is further encoded.
Atsumi discloses wherein information representing a moved potion of the ROI region (italicized for context) is further encoded ([0009], Atsumi discloses encoding coordinates of a region of interest.).
Yoon, Lu, Adobe in a Minute, and Atsumi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of manipulating images with identified regions of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon in view of Lu in view of Adobe in a Minute such that the coordinate information of the region of interests which are modified and moved (as taught by Yoon in view of Lu in view of Adobe in a Minute) are encoded based on the disclosure provided by Atsumi. The motivation for this combination being the ability to use the coordinate information to aid the process of decoding the image.
Claim 8 is rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Ohishi (US 2002/0154801; hereinafter “Ohishi”).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon discloses the method of claim 7.
Yoon does not explicitly disclose wherein the ROI group is moved with reference to a pre-defined position in the image, and wherein the pre-define position is a top-left position, top-right position, bottom-left position, bottom-right position or center position in the image.
Ohishi discloses wherein the ROI group is moved with reference to a pre-defined position in the image, and wherein the pre-define position is a top-left position, top-right position, bottom-left position, bottom-right position or center position in the image ([0081], Ohishi discloses shifting a region of interest to the center of an image.).
Yoon and Ohishi are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of manipulating images with identified regions of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon to include the centering logic disclosed by Ohishi, such that the region of interest identified by Yoon is centered in the image. The motivation for this combination being the ability to ensure that the important portion of an image (i.e., the region of interest) is consistent across all images processed.
Claim 9 is rejected as being unpatentable over Yoon in view of Adobe in a Minute.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon discloses the method of claim 1, wherein when a plurality of regions of interest are present in the image, each of the plurality of regions of interest is set as a ROI group (see Figs. 4-5),
Yoon does not explicitly disclose wherein the converted image is derived by moving each of a plurality of ROI groups in the image.
Adobe in a Minute discloses and wherein the converted image is derived by moving each of a plurality of ROI groups in the image (see 0:12-0:30, Adobe in a Minute discloses defining a region of interest. See 0:40-0:50, Adobe in a Minute discloses moving the selected region of interest. The Examiner notes that the software used by Adobe in a Minute (Photoshop) is not limited to performing this process to only one region of interest, and that this process can be used multiple times on different regions of interest.).
PNG
media_image1.png
696
1107
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
894
1417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (Screenshots from the video made by Adobe in a Minute. (Top) Selection of a region of interest. (Bottom) Moving the region of interest.)]
Yoon and Adobe in a Minute are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention as they are in the same field of manipulating images with identified regions of interest. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yoon such that the plurality of regions of interest which are identified by Yoon are moveable based on the disclosure presented by Adobe in a Minute. The motivation for this combination being the ability to further provide a different way in which an image can be modified.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sakomizu (US 2020/0322616)
Welinder and Wang (US 2015/0161466)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (703)756-5584. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm 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, 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.
/PROMOTTO TAJRIAN ISLAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights