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 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:
Determining Main Object of Subject Playing Sports Based On Prioritizing Selected Offensive and Defensive Postures
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:
Claim 12’s imaging unit configured to capture an image. Although a processor and memory are recited in claim 12 these elements are not connected or associated with the imaging unit. Moreover, the imaging unit is functionally defined and the term does not connote structure to one of ordinary skill.
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 § 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.
Claims 5 and 10 are 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 5 recites “wherein the image processing apparatus changes processing of determining the priority posture depending on a sport”. This element is so wholly divorced from any context as to lose its meaning. For example, there is no input or determination of a sport. Moreover, does the determination depend on a sport? Or perhaps the priority posture depends on a sport?
Claim 10 is rejected due to its dependency upon claim 5.
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, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2021/0127068 A1) and Segawa (US 2017/0161547 A1). It is noted that Nishiyama is commonly owned by Applicant, Canon Kabushiki Kaisha, but is outside the grace period and applicable under both 102(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Nishiyama discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors that, when executing a program stored in a memory {Figs. 1 image processing unit 152 and main control 2, computer readable storage medium, [0009], [0076]-[0077]}, cause the image processing apparatus to:
detect specific subjects from an image {Figs. 1 image processing unit 152 and main control 2, Figs. 2, 3 subject detecting unit 202, [0033]-[0036], detect subject step S303}};
detect a posture of each of the detected subjects {Figs, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 6 including obtain posture of each subject step S304, [0033], posture obtaining unit 203};
acquire a degree of reliability of being a main subject for each of the detected subjects based on the posture {see [0006]-[0009], Fig. 3 calculate reliability (probability) of each subject based on posture, [0039]-[0055]};
determine the main subject based on the degree of reliability
Segawa is an analogous reference from the same field of image processing and main/priority subject determination. See abstract, [0001]-[0012] and cites below.
In regards to claim 1, Segawa discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors that, when executing a program stored in a memory {Fig. 14 including CPU 501, memory 502, 503, and recording medium 511, [0118]-[0128], cause the image processing apparatus to:
detect specific subjects from an image {Fig. 1 person detection 13 and/or human body region extraction 12, [0029]-[0034]};
detect a posture of each of the detected subjects {pose/posture detection is detected in pose optimization section 16, Fig. 1, [0047]-[0049], Fig. 3, [0051]-[0052]};
acquire information on a priority target {Estimation objectives 17 may be set by UI 11, estimation objective generation section 14, Figs. 1, 4, S14, [0035]-[0041], [0063], including, Fig. 6A-D priority target information/conditions (number of players, priority targets (e.g. Persons A-E), non-priority targets (e.g. spectators, Persons D-Z), and priority order (Fig. 6C assigning priority levels 1-3 to persons B, C, and A, respectively), [0065]-[0066], [0072]-[0076]}; and
determine the main subject based on the information on the priority target {Figs. 1, 5, 6A-D including generating estimation objective (main subject) S35 which is based on information on the priority target and posture/pose via the pose optimization section 16, [0071]-[0076], fig. 7, [0077]-[0081], Fig. 11, [0089]-[0095], Fig. 13, [0103]-[0110]}
It 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 to have modified Nishiyama which already discloses detecting specific subjects from an image; detect a posture of each of the detected subjects; acquiring a degree of reliability of being a main subject for each of the detected subjects based on the posture, and determining the main subject based on the degree of reliability such that the process/apparatus also acquires information on a priority target; and determine the main subject based on the information on the priority target as taught by Segawa such that the determination of main subject is based on the degree of reliability and the information on the priority target because such priority-based determinations improve main subject determination when there are plural candidates to meet the estimation objective as motivated by Segawa, because setting priority leads to faster and more stable processing as further motivated by Segawa in [0066], because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Nishiyama discloses wherein the image processing apparatus further selects a specific posture from among a plurality of detected postures as a priority posture and determines the main subject based on the priority posture {see [0053]-[0056] in which a specific posture such as posture states prior to a transition to an important action can be learned as one of the (reliability) states of the main subject such as a posture state in which detecting a subject that is swinging their leg to kick the ball determines the main subject. Moreover, by training the machine learning model with this specific posture the method thus selects that specific posture from among a plurality of other detected postures (e.g. not indicative of leg swinging to kick ball) as a priority posture and sets the main subject based on that priority posture}.
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Nishiyama discloses wherein the image processing apparatus changes processing of determining the priority posture depending on a sport {see Figs. 4A-B depicting soccer postures and applications to ball games and other types of sports, [0031]-[0039], [0053] in which the priority postures are, e.g., kicking a ball or actions associated with other types of sports that are not ball games or do not include shooting scene action recognition priority}.
Claim 6
In regards to claim 6, Nishiyama discloses wherein the image processing apparatus further sets a threshold of a degree of reliability for detecting a posture depending on the priority posture {see [0053], [0060]-[0068] including pre-set reliability thresholds for the priority posture to be detected}.
Claim 7
In regards to claim 5, Nishiyama discloses wherein the detected plurality of postures includes an offensive posture and a defensive posture {see above cites including [0037], [0053] in which the posture/action is kicking a ball or swinging a leg to kick the ball which are actions that may be considered both offensive and defensive postures. For example, the player may be kicking the ball to score a goal (offensive posture) or may be kicking the ball to clear the goal to prevent a score (defensive posture)}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 5, Nishiyama discloses wherein the image processing apparatus registers at least one of a goal position, a court position, or a color of a uniform as the information on the priority target {see [0067] main subject determined by color of subject’ clothing (uniform)}.
Claims 12, 13 and 14
The rejection of device claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of imaging apparatus claim 12, method claim 13 and computer readable medium claim 14 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. Further as to the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claim 14 see [0076]-[0077]. Further as to the imaging unit of claim 12 see Fig. 1 image capturing apparatus 100, [0020]-[0024], and image processing unit 152, [0025].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 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.
Although Nishiyama discloses the broadly recited features of claim 78 in which the detected postures include offensive and defensive postures (e.g. kicking a ball), none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggests (claim 3) wherein the image processing apparatus further determines whether the priority target is on an offensive side or a defensive side of a playing area and selects either an offensive posture or a defensive posture as the priority posture in combination with the features of claim 1 and intervening claim 2.
Likewise, none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggests (claim 4) wherein the image processing apparatus further determines whether each of the plurality of detected postures is a posture of the priority target and sets the posture of the priority target as the priority posture in combination with the features of claim 1 and intervening claim 2.
Claim 8 depends from claim 4 and is objected to due to its dependence upon claim 4.
Likewise, none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggest (claim 10) wherein the image processing apparatus determines the priority posture based on at least one of prioritizing an offensive posture when a goal position on a playing area is present in a panning direction of the image processing apparatus, prioritizing the offensive posture when there is a subject moving toward the goal position, prioritizing a defensive posture when there are subjects gathered in a direction opposite to the goal position, prioritizing the offensive posture when there is a ball in a court position of a playing area, or prioritizing the posture of a subject wearing a uniform of a registered color in combination with the features of claim 1 and intervening claims 2 and 5. It is noted that this indication of allowability is also predicated on resolving the 112(b) rejection of intervening claim 5.
Likewise, none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggest (claim 11) wherein, when the priority posture is an offensive posture, the image processing apparatus sets the threshold of the degree of reliability for the offensive posture to a lower value than the threshold of the degree of reliability for a defensive posture in combination with the features of claim 1 and intervening claim 2.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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 ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights