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 .
Status of Claims
This communication is in response to the Application Filed on 01/02/2025.
Claims 1-14 are pending in this application.
Drawings
The drawing(s) filed on 01/02/2025 are accepted by the Examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-14 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “an analysis step of analyzing a subject of the main image or a subject of an image captured earlier in time than capturing of the main image” recites a “main image”, and the claim limitation “a decision step of deciding on a factor of an image quality of the accessory image or an angle of view of the accessory image based on an analysis result obtained in the analysis step” recites an “accessory image”. The introduction of the accessory image in the decision step before the generation step renders the claim unclear as to where and how the accessory image is being generated. For purposes of examination, the examiner will consider the decision step of deciding on the factor or angle of view to be for “the accessory image to be generated” as is discussed in the generation step.
Independent claim 14 recites the “main image” and “accessory image” in a similar fashion as in claim 1 and therefore is rejected similarly.
Claims 2-13 are rejected for the same reason, due to their dependency.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover mental process (concept performed in a human mind, including as observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The independent claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s) a method of creating and a device that creates. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps do not add meaningful limitations to be considered specifically applied to a particular technological problem to be solved .The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the claimed invention can be done mentally and no additional features in the claims would preclude them from being performed as such except for the generic computer elements at high level of generality (i.e., processor, memory).
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that the independent claims 1 and 14 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? YES. Independent claims 1 and 14 are directed to a method and a device.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed toward a mental process (i.e. abstract idea).
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Independent claims 1 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 1: the limitations recite:
an analysis step of analyzing a subject of the main image or a subject of an image captured earlier in time than capturing of the main image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
a decision step of deciding on a factor of an image quality of the accessory image or an angle of view of the accessory image based on an analysis result obtained in the analysis step (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind);
and a generation step of generating the accessory image based on the factor or the angle of view decided on in the decision step (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data).
Independent claims 14 comprise a mental process that can be practicably performed in the human mind (or generic computers or components configured to perform the method) and, therefore, an abstract idea.
Regarding independent claim(s) 14: the limitations recite:
a processor, wherein the processor executes (generic computers or components configured to perform the method),
analysis processing of analyzing a subject of the main image or a subject of an image captured earlier in time than capturing of the main image (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind),
decision processing of deciding on a factor of an image quality of the accessory image or an angle of view of the accessory image based on an analysis result obtained in the analysis step (mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind), and
generation processing of generating the accessory image based on the factor or the angle of view decided on in the decision step (insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data)
These limitations, as drafted, is a simple process that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind or by a human. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
As such, a person could mentally analyze and observe an object in an image (i.e., main image) and decide based on the observation to generate an image. The generation of an image (i.e., thumbnail image or accessory image) can depend on the angle of an object from the main image it is being viewed by a person, or it can depend on a resolution or quality of the object in the main image. The mere nominal recitation that the various steps are being executed by a processor (claim 14) does not take the limitations out of the mental process grouping. Therefore, it is clear that under prong one the claim is directed towards a mental process because it simply generates a thumbnail image from the main image depending on either an angle of view or quality as a factor. Thus, the claims recite a mental process.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Independent claims 1 and 14 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1 and 14 disclose a processor and a generation step, which are generic computer components and/or insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea (the steps of “analyzing”, “deciding”, and “generating”) because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea in a method. Supplying ‘data’ does not provide for integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, as said ‘data’ does not change the operation of the system. This is interpretated as ‘visualization’.
These limitations are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general action or change being taken based on the results of the acquiring step) and amounts to mere post solution actions, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Further, the claims are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity such that they do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception of “analyzing”, “deciding”, and “generating”. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Independent claim(s) 1 and 14 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. The use of a generic computer elements, such as a processor, are routine, well-understood and conventional process that is performed by computers. There is no technological improvement present. There is only “analyzing”, “deciding”, “and “generating”, with no additional elements other than a “deciding on a factor of an image quality of the accessory image or an angle of view of accessory image”. As mentioned above, such factors are generic to the invention and considered as mental process under an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion. Sufficient evidence has not been provided to show the mental process allows the “technology” to do something that it previously was not able to do. Therefore, claims 1 and 14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding claim 2: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in the analysis step, a type, a size, or resolution perception of a main subject of the main image or a main subject of the image captured earlier in time than the capturing of the main image is analyzed are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 3: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): a selection step of, in a case in which a plurality of the subjects are present in the main image, selecting the main subject from among the plurality of subjects before the analysis step is carried out are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 4: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on one or more conditions of a focus position of an imaging device in the main image, a visual line position of a user of the imaging device in the main image, a feature of the subject in the main image, or a degree of change in the subject between the main image and the image captured earlier in time than the capturing of the main image are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 5: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in a case in which the type of the main subject is designated, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on the designated type and the one or more conditions are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 6: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the type is designated by the user are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 7: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in the decision step, a resolution of the accessory image is decided on such that a spatial frequency of a region of the main subject in the accessory image is equal to or higher than a predetermined value are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 8: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in the decision step, in a case in which the size of the main subject is smaller than a predetermined size, a resolution or the number of gradations of the accessory image is increased or the angle of view is decreased, as compared to a case in which the size of the main subject is equal to or larger than the predetermined size are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 9: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in the generation step, a first accessory image as the accessory image based on an entire main image and a second accessory image as the accessory image based on a region of a main subject in the main image are generated based on the factor or the angle of view decided on in the decision step are mental processes including insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data.
Regarding claim 10: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein, in a case in which a mode for increasing the factor of the accessory image is selected, in the decision step, the factor of the accessory image is decided on based on the selected mode and the analysis result obtained in the analysis step are mental processes including mental process including observation and evaluation, and can be done mentally in the human mind.
Regarding claim 13: the additional limitations do not integrate the mental process into practical application or add significantly more to the mental process. The limitation(s): wherein the accessory image is an image that is not changed in conjunction with a change in the main image caused by correction processing are mental processes including insignificant pre/post-solution extra activity of generating data.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(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.
Claims 1, 2, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”).
Regarding claim 1, An image file creation method (See Satoshi, ¶ [0052] an image file creation device 100) of creating an image file including a main image and an accessory image as accessory information related to the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0058] The thumbnail image creation section 120 creates multiple types of thumbnail images corresponding to the 3D image, on the basis of the integrated image created by the 3D image creation section 110 and the images from the multiple viewpoints before integration; Fig. 2, viewpoint 1 and thumbnail image file. Examiner considers the image taken at viewpoint 1 as the main image and the thumbnail image as the accessory image), the image file creation method comprising:
an analysis step of analyzing a subject of the main image or a subject of an image captured earlier in time than capturing of the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints. Examiner considers this as an analysis step as the subject is being captured or analyzed at different viewpoints);
a decision step of deciding on a factor of an image quality of the accessory image or an angle of view of the accessory image based on an analysis result obtained in the analysis step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0060] FIG. 3A shows thumbnail images created by, when images from four viewpoints have been inputted and an integrated image (3D image) of four-viewpoints has been created by the 3D image creation section 110, reducing the integrated image. Examiner considers the angle of view related to the viewpoint. As seen in ¶ [0060-0063], different thumbnails can be generated based on different numbers of viewpoints);
and a generation step of generating the accessory image based on the factor or the angle of view decided on in the decision step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] the 3D image creation section 110 can also generate a range image from the multiple images obtained by capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints; ¶ [0058] The thumbnail image creation section 120 creates multiple types of thumbnail images corresponding to the 3D image, on the basis of the integrated image created by the 3D image creation section 110 and the images from the multiple viewpoints before integration. The thumbnail image created is decided based on viewpoints of the angle of view).
Regarding claim 2, wherein, in the analysis step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints. Examiner considers this as an analysis step as the subject is being captured or analyzed at different viewpoints), a type, a size, or resolution perception of a main subject of the main image or a main subject of the image captured earlier in time than the capturing of the main image is analyzed (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints. Examiner considers the same subject being analyzed at different viewpoints to be a different type of subject being analyzed. The subject at different viewpoints will be different).
Regarding claim 14, An image file creation device (See Satoshi, ¶ [0052] an image file creation device 100) that creates an image file including a main image and an accessory image as accessory information related to the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0058] The thumbnail image creation section 120 creates multiple types of thumbnail images corresponding to the 3D image, on the basis of the integrated image created by the 3D image creation section 110 and the images from the multiple viewpoints before integration; Fig. 2, viewpoint 1 and thumbnail image file. Examiner considers the image taken at viewpoint 1 as the main image and the thumbnail image as the accessory image), the image file creation device comprising:
a processor (See Satoshi, ¶ [0055] The control section 160),
wherein the processor executes analysis processing of analyzing a subject of the main image or a subject of an image captured earlier in time than capturing of the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0055] The control section 160 performs overall control of the components and controls them in accordance with a predetermined program. In the storage section 170, there are stored programs to be executed by the control section 160 and setting data and the like of the components),
analysis processing of analyzing a subject of the main image or a subject of an image captured earlier in time than capturing of the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints. Examiner considers this as an analysis step as the subject is being captured or analyzed at different viewpoints);
decision processing of deciding on a factor of an image quality of the accessory image or an angle of view of the accessory image based on an analysis result obtained in the analysis step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0060] FIG. 3A shows thumbnail images created by, when images from four viewpoints have been inputted and an integrated image (3D image) of four-viewpoints has been created by the 3D image creation section 110, reducing the integrated image. Examiner considers the angle of view related to the viewpoint. As seen in ¶ [0060-0063], different thumbnails can be generated based on different number of viewpoints), and
generation processing of generating the accessory image based on the factor or the angle of view decided on in the decision step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] the 3D image creation section 110 can also generate a range image from the multiple images obtained by capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints; ¶ [0058] The thumbnail image creation section 120 creates multiple types of thumbnail images corresponding to the 3D image, on the basis of the integrated image created by the 3D image creation section 110 and the images from the multiple viewpoints before integration. The thumbnail image created is decided based on viewpoints of the angle of view).
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 3-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Arai et al. (Visual-Attention-based Thumbnail using Two-Stage GrabCut, 2012, hereinafter, “Arai”).
Regarding claim 3, in which claim 2 is incorporated, Satoshi does not teach a selection step of, in a case in which a plurality of the subjects are present in the main image, selecting the main subject from among the plurality of subjects before the analysis step is carried out.
Arai teaches a selection step of, in a case in which a plurality of the subjects are present in the main image, selecting the main subject from among the plurality of subjects before the analysis step is carried out (See Arai, Pg. 3, left col., lines 4-7, Our method starts with a prescribed rectangle that surrounds attention objects. Then, it decomposes the input image into multiple foreground images and one background image by using an image mask; Pg. 3, right col., lines 1-2, Our segmentation method carves an attention object from its inner area surrounded by a rectangle).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein a selection step of, in a case in which a plurality of the subjects are present in the main image, selecting the main subject from among the plurality of subjects before the analysis step is carried out based on the method of Arai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to preserve the recognizability of attention objects as suggested by Arai at Pg. 2, left col., par. 3, lines 2-3.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arai with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, in which claim 3 is incorporated, Satoshi does not teach wherein, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on one or more conditions of a focus position of an imaging device in the main image, a visual line position of a user of the imaging device in the main image, a feature of the subject in the main image, or a degree of change in the subject between the main image and the image captured earlier in time than the capturing of the main image.
Arai teaches wherein, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on one or more conditions of a focus position of an imaging device in the main image, a visual line position of a user of the imaging device in the main image, a feature of the subject in the main image, or a degree of change in the subject between the main image and the image captured earlier in time than the capturing of the main image (See Arai, Pg. 4, left col., step 8, Extract an attention object by denoising and then selecting the largest candidate area of an attention object. Examiner interprets this as a way of selecting a main subject based on the condition of a feature of the main subject, which would be the largest candidate area observed after denoising an image).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on one or more conditions of a focus position of an imaging device in the main image, a visual line position of a user of the imaging device in the main image, a feature of the subject in the main image, or a degree of change in the subject between the main image and the image captured earlier in time than the capturing of the main image based on the method of Arai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to preserve the recognizability of attention objects as suggested by Arai at Pg. 2, left col., par. 3, lines 2-3.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arai with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, in which claim 4 is incorporated, Satoshi does not teach wherein, in a case in which the type of the main subject is designated, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on the designated type and the one or more conditions.
Arai teaches wherein, in a case in which the type of the main subject is designated, in the selection step, (See Arai, Pg. 3, left col., lines 4-7, Our method starts with a prescribed rectangle that surrounds attention objects. Then, it decomposes the input image into multiple foreground images and one background image by using an image mask; Pg. 3, right col., lines 1-2, Our segmentation method carves an attention object from its inner area surrounded by a rectangle. Examiner considers this to be the selection step of choosing an attention object, or main subject) the main subject is selected based on the designated type and the one or more conditions (See Arai, Pg. 4, left col., step 8, Extract an attention object by denoising and then selecting the largest candidate area of an attention object. Examiner interprets this to be a way of selecting a main subject based on the condition of a feature of the main subject, which would be the largest candidate area observed after denoising an image).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein, in a case in which the type of the main subject is designated, in the selection step, the main subject is selected based on the designated type and the one or more conditions based on the method of Arai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to preserve the recognizability of attention objects as suggested by Arai at Pg. 2, left col., par. 3, lines 2-3.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arai with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Satoshi does not teach wherein, in the decision step, a resolution of the accessory image is decided on such that a spatial frequency of a region of the main subject in the accessory image is equal to or higher than a predetermined value.
Arai teaches wherein, in the decision step, a resolution of the accessory image is decided on such that a spatial frequency of a region of the main subject in the accessory image is equal to or higher than a predetermined value (See Arai, Pg. 4, right col., section 2) background image shrinking, par. 3, lines 2-4, where I (x, y) represents the pixel intensity of the background gradient image and Sal(x,y) represents the pixel intensity of the background saliency map [8]); Pg. 4, right col., section 2) background image shrinking, par. 4, Equation (4) lets seam carving remove the filled region preferentially (i.e., the region where Ms(x.y) = 1), because the filled region had foregrounds and should be ignored. Among the other areas, the salient area is retained preferentially because of the assumption that a highly salient area tends to be important). Examiner considers the pixel intensity as a spatial frequency and the predetermined value to be 0 or the higher value of 1 as seen in Equation 4).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein, in the decision step, a resolution of the accessory image is decided on such that a spatial frequency of a region of the main subject in the accessory image is equal to or higher than a predetermined value based on the method of Arai’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to preserve the recognizability of attention objects as suggested by Arai at Pg. 2, left col., par. 3, lines 2-3.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Arai with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Arai et al. (Visual-Attention-based Thumbnail using Two-Stage GrabCut, 2012, hereinafter, “Arai”) and further in view of Nomura et al. (JP 2004-349731, hereinafter, “Nomura”).
Regarding claim 6, in which claim 5 is incorporated, Satoshi in combination with Arai does not teach wherein the type is designated by the user.
Nomura teaches wherein the type is designated by the user (See Nomura, ¶ [0066 the user selects one image file or management file).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s or Arai’s reference wherein the type is designated by the user based on the method of Nomura’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable efficient selection of images as suggested by Nomura at ¶ [0016].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nomura with Satoshi and Arai to obtain the invention as specified in claim 6.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Kuchta et al. (US 5,164,831 A, hereinafter, “Kuchta”).
Regarding claim 8, Satoshi teaches wherein, in the decision step, (See Satoshi, ¶ [0060] FIG. 3A shows thumbnail images created by, when images from four viewpoints have been inputted and an integrated image (3D image) of four-viewpoints has been created by the 3D image creation section 110, reducing the integrated image. Examiner considers the angle of view related to the viewpoint. As seen in ¶ [0060-0063], different thumbnails can be generated based on different number of viewpoints) [in a case in which the size of the main subject is smaller than a predetermined size, a resolution or the number of gradations of the accessory image is increased or the angle of view is decreased, as compared to a case in which the size of the main subject is equal to or larger than the predetermined size.]
However, Satoshi does not teach in a case in which the size of the main subject is smaller than a predetermined size, a resolution or the number of gradations of the accessory image is increased or the angle of view is decreased, as compared to a case in which the size of the main subject is equal to or larger than the predetermined size.
Kuchta teaches in a case in which the size of the main subject is smaller than a predetermined size (See Kuchta, Col. 6, lines 42-47, To display the image, it must first be expanded, and the resulting 4 Megabytes of information transferred to a display device. A "thumbnail" image is constructed by using the average value of each 16 by 16 pixel area in the original image to represent each pixel of the "thumbnail" image. Examiner considers the predetermined size to be the size of the display device, in which the image, which can contain main object or subject, must be expanded because it is smaller than needed), a resolution or the number of gradations of the accessory image is increased or the angle of view is decreased, as compared to a case in which the size of the main subject is equal to or larger than the predetermined size (See Kuchta, Col. 6, lines 42-47, To display the image, it must first be expanded, and the resulting 4 Megabytes of information transferred to a display device. A "thumbnail" image is constructed by using the average value of each 16 by 16 pixel area in the original image to represent each pixel of the "thumbnail" image. Examiner considers the expansion of the image to mean the resolution of the image is increasing).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein in a case in which the size of the main subject is smaller than a predetermined size, a resolution or the number of gradations of the accessory image is increased or the angle of view is decreased, as compared to a case in which the size of the main subject is equal to or larger than the predetermined size based on the method of Kuchta’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to have a resulting image that would be of sufficient quality to identify the subject matter of the original as suggested by Kuchta at Col. 6, lines 52-53.
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kuchta with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Nomura et al. (JP 2004-349731, hereinafter, “Nomura”).
Regarding claim 9, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Satoshi teaches wherein, in the generation step, a first accessory image as the accessory image based on an entire main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0015] The thumbnail image can be created from an original image (three-dimensional image) at the time of reproduction) [and a second accessory image as the accessory image based on a region of a main subject in the main image] are generated based on the factor or the angle of view decided on in the decision step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0060] FIG. 3A shows thumbnail images created by, when images from four viewpoints have been inputted and an integrated image (3D image) of four-viewpoints has been created by the 3D image creation section 110, reducing the integrated image. Examiner considers the angle of view related to the viewpoint. As seen in Satoshi ¶ [0060-0063], different thumbnails can be generated based on different number of viewpoints).
However, Satoshi does not teach a second accessory image as the accessory image based on a region of a main subject in the main image.
Nomura teaches a second accessory image as the accessory image based on a region of a main subject in the main image (See Nomura, ¶ [0088] ).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein a second accessory image as the accessory image based on a region of a main subject in the main image based on the method of Nomura’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enable efficient selection of images from any viewpoint as suggested by Nomura at ¶ [0016].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Nomura with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 9.
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Fukada et al. (US 2022/0121704 A1, hereinafter, “Fukada”).
Regarding claim 10, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Satoshi teaches [wherein, in a case in which a mode for increasing the factor of the accessory image is selected], in the decision step, the factor of the accessory image is decided on based on the selected mode (See Satoshi, ¶ [0060] FIG. 3A shows thumbnail images created by, when images from four viewpoints have been inputted and an integrated image (3D image) of four-viewpoints has been created by the 3D image creation section 110, reducing the integrated image. Examiner considers the angle of view related to the viewpoint. As seen in ¶ [0060-0063], different thumbnails can be generated based on different number of viewpoints) and the analysis result obtained in the analysis step (See Satoshi, ¶ [0057] capturing images of the same subject from multiple viewpoints. Examiner considers this as an analysis step as the subject is being captured or analyzed at different viewpoints).
However, Satoshi does not teach in a case in which a mode for increasing the factor of the accessory image is selected.
Fukada teaches in a case in which a mode for increasing the factor of the accessory image is selected (See Fukada, ¶ [0083] enlargement/reduction may be performed while maintaining the aspect ratio by designating only one of the sizes and designating a value such as 0 as the other size so as not to designate one of the sizes after the size change).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein in a case in which a mode for increasing the factor of the accessory image is selected based on the method of Fukada’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enlarge/reduce or crop the image to fall within the display size as suggested by Fukada at ¶ [0083].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fukada with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
Regarding claim 13, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Satoshi teaches wherein the accessory image is an image that is not changed in conjunction with a change in the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0116] multiple types of thumbnail images are recorded in the 3D image file without creating the thumbnail image file. Examiner considers this to mean multiples files are created without creating the thumbnail image first and thus has not been altered yet) caused by correction processing.
However, Satoshi does not teach [wherein the accessory image is an image that is not changed in conjunction with a change in the main image] caused by correction processing
Fukada teaches [wherein the accessory image is an image that is not changed in conjunction with a change in the main image] caused by correction processing (See Fukada, ¶ [0083] enlargement/reduction may be performed while maintaining the aspect ratio by designating only one of the sizes and designating a value such as 0 as the other size so as not to designate one of the sizes after the size change. Examiner considers the enlargement/reduction to be a type of correction process).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference [wherein the accessory image is an image that is not changed in conjunction with a change in the main image] caused by correction processing based on the method of Fukada’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to enlarge/reduce or crop the image to fall within the display size as suggested by Fukada at ¶ [0083].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Fukada with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Tsuda (WO 2006/090622 A1, hereinafter, “Tsuda”).
Regarding claim 11, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Satoshi teaches [an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the accessory image, wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file] as the accessory information related to the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0058] The thumbnail image creation section 120 creates multiple types of thumbnail images corresponding to the 3D image; Fig 2, viewpoint 1 image and thumbnail image file).
However, Satoshi does not teach an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the accessory image, wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file.
Tsuda teaches an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the accessory image (See Tsuda, ¶ [0030], Step S5: The microprocessor 19 encrypts the information verification data obtained in step S3 and the image verification data obtained in step S4 with the encryption key to create encrypted data), wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file (See Tsuda, ¶ [0088], the encrypted data (verification data) is stored in the image file).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s reference wherein an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the accessory image, wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file based on the method of Tsuda’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reliably verify important information as suggested by Tsuda at Pg. 55, ¶ [0047].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsuda with Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Satoshi (US 2008/0129728 A1, hereinafter, “Satoshi”) in view of Nomura et al. (JP 2004-349731, hereinafter, “Nomura”) and further in view of Tsuda (WO 2006/090622 A1, hereinafter, “Tsuda”).
Regarding claim 12, in which claim 1 is incorporated, Satoshi teaches [an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the second accessory image, wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file] as the accessory information related to the main image (See Satoshi, ¶ [0058] The thumbnail image creation section 120 creates multiple types of thumbnail images corresponding to the 3D image; Fig 2, viewpoint 1 image and thumbnail image file).
However, Satoshi or Nomura does not teach an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the second accessory image, wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file.
Tsuda teaches an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the second accessory image (See Tsuda, ¶ [0030], Step S5: The microprocessor 19 encrypts the information verification data obtained in step S3 and the image verification data obtained in step S4 with the encryption key to create encrypted data. Examiner considers this process of creating encrypting data to be possible for image data, of which there can be a first or secondary accessory image if needed as there is no limit to only one image), wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file (See Tsuda, ¶ [0088], the encrypted data (verification data) is stored in the image file).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Satoshi’s or Nomura’s reference wherein an encryption step of acquiring information obtained by encrypting the second accessory image, wherein the information acquired in the encryption step is stored in the image file based on the method of Tsuda’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to reliably verify important information as suggested by Tsuda at Pg. 55, ¶ [0047].
Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Tsuda with Nomura and Satoshi to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Judhav et al. (Image resizing for thumbnail images by using seam carving, 2015) discloses an image processing technique for resizing thumbnail images. A seam carving method is used to more effectively resize images. By using a two-stage object extraction, the goal is to preserve a region of interest, minimize distortions, and improve efficiency of image resizing. A boundary model and learned boundary are used to guide the resizing process while taking multiple image features into account, such as brightness, color, and texture.
Shiohara (US 2009/0290042 A1) discloses a development processing device to more easily adjust how a digital image is developed. The user is able to control and adjust parameters, which in turn can yield images that are more accurate to what the user decides. Though a secondary or thumbnail image is not generated, the process of generating the main image takes into a first and second parameter and a developing processing unit based on those parameters.
Huang et al. (Automatic Thumbnail Generation Based on Visual Representativeness and Foreground Recognizability, 2015) discloses an automatic thumbnail generation technique. Previous techniques do not consider how well the resized image represents the original image. Both cropping and rescaling are necessary when resizing to a thumbnail image. The proposed method used saliency and foreground estimation and object recognition to get an accurate crop window.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasmin Marcelino Hernandez whose telephone number is (571) 270-0211. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3pm 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/JASMIN MARCELINO HERNAND/Examiner, Art Unit 2676
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights