DETAILED ACTION
*Note in the following document:
1. Texts in italic bold format are limitations quoted either directly or conceptually from claims/descriptions disclosed in the instant application.
2. Texts in regular italic format are quoted directly from cited reference or Applicant’s arguments.
3. Texts with underlining are added by the Examiner for emphasis.
4. Texts with
5. Acronym “PHOSITA” stands for “Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art”.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18-20 recites The recording medium, … (line 1). Suggest adding “non-transitory computer-readable” between “the” and “recording medium”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 13, 15-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashizawa (JP 2023163692 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Ashizawa discloses an image generation apparatus comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions (Fig.7: memory 92, notice processor 91 shown in Fig.7, therefore Ashizawa indirectly discloses the memory stores instructions to drive the processor 91); and
PNG
media_image1.png
450
485
media_image1.png
Greyscale
at least one processor (Fig.7: processor 91) configured to execute the instructions to:
acquire a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) image (Fig.2 and p.2
PNG
media_image2.png
74
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
detect an object included in the SAR image (p.2
PNG
media_image2.png
74
876
media_image2.png
Greyscale
);
determine a size of a cut-out image corresponding to the object (p.4:
PNG
media_image3.png
56
818
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Also see image 42 in Fig.4 below
PNG
media_image4.png
755
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
); and
generate a cut-out image obtained by cutting out an image having the determined size from the SAR image in such a way that a position of the object in the cut-out image is random (Fig.6 and p.7
PNG
media_image5.png
201
852
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
720
497
media_image6.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claim 3/15/19, Ashizawa further discloses randomly determine a position of a reference point in a detection range in which the object is detected in the cut-out image (p.7:
PNG
media_image7.png
60
852
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Notice the center of circle which is defined by 513/514 is interpreted as the reference point).
Regarding Claim 4/16/20, Ashizawa discloses generate the cut-out image in such a way that the entire detection range in which the object is detected is included in the cut-out image (see Fig.4: cutout image 42.
PNG
media_image4.png
755
499
media_image4.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claim 12, Ashizawa further discloses generate the cut-out image cut out from the SAR image so as not to include the object (Fig.4 image 43. Also see p.4
PNG
media_image8.png
48
838
media_image8.png
Greyscale
).
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is/are similar to Claim 1 except in the format of method. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1 is/are also applied to Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is/are similar to Claim 1 except in the format of non-transitory computer-readable recording medium. Therefore the same reason(s) for rejection is/are applied to Claim 1 is/are also applied to Claim 17.
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 of this title, 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.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2, 5-6, 11, 14, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashizawa (JP 2023163692 A).
Regarding Claim 2/14/18, Ashizawa teaches in order to detect a target object from an actual SAR image with relatively high accuracy using machine learning, SAR images of the target object captured at various angles are required as a learning data set (p.3 5th paragraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to generate the cut-out image in such a way that the position of the object in the cut-out image is random to such an extent that the position of the object is not learned as one of feature amounts in order to ensure accuracy in detecting the target object since it is difficult to prepare SAR images taken at various angles as suggested by Ashizawa (p.3 5th paragraph).
PNG
media_image9.png
128
838
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 5-6, Ashizawa discloses randomly assigning cutout X/Y coordinates, object X/Y coordinates and azimuth 515 (p.7 eight paraph). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Ashizawa and to include the limitation of output a screen on which a cut-out range of the cut-out image is capable of being adjusted; receive an instruction to generate the cut-out image in the adjusted cut-out range; and generate the cut-out image in the adjusted cut-out range and the limitation of output a screen capable of designating a position of the object in the cut-out image; receive designation of the position of the object in the cut-out image; and generate the cut-out image in such a way that the object is included at the designated position in order to allow users to make fine adjustments.
Regarding Claim 11, Ashizawa discloses The learning data generation device 1 generates a learning data set for machine learning to detect a target object from a remote sensing image (p.2
PNG
media_image10.png
43
845
media_image10.png
Greyscale
). Therefore it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date to incorporate the teaching of Ashizawa and to include the limitation of detect a similar object that looks similar to the object; and generate the cut-out image in such a way that a position of the similar object in the cut-out image is random in order to use the training data to detect the target object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art, either individually or in combination, fails to disclose or render obviousness the limitation of create a distribution map representing a positional deviation of the object in the cut-out image; and output a screen displaying the distribution map as claimed in dependent Claim 7. The closest prior art, Ashizawa (JP 2023163692 A), discloses generating randomly cut-out SAR images. However, it fails to disclose including a distribution map in the cut-out image. Claims 8-10 are objected due to their dependency on Claim 7.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YINGCHUN HE whose telephone number is (571)270-7218. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 MT.
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, Xiao M Wu can be reached at 571-272-7761. 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.
/YINGCHUN HE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights