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 .
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 1, 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa (US Patent No. 7,133,078 B2) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2021/0390696 A1).
In considering claim 1, Nagasawa discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed receive an image generated using an imaging device is met by the calculation circuit 10 which receives the input image data from the image sensor 6 (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 12 to col. 4, line 36), 2) the claimed determine a contrast distribution for the image is met by the contrast calculation section 13 which treats a set of consecutive pixels indicated by the pixel data as one pixel block, calculates the sum of the differences between signal levels of adjacent pixel blocks or the sum of the square of each of those differences as the contrast value of the image (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 12 to col. 4, line 36), 3) the claimed calculate a value representative of a capability of the imaging device to detect contrast based on the contrast distribution is met by the CPU 15 which calculates the sum of the contrast values calculated by the contrast calculation section 13 as an contrast evaluation value (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 12 to col. 4, line 36), and 4) the claimed generate a feature vector based on the image and the value representative of the capability of the imaging device to detect contrast is met by the CPU 15 reads the contrast value calculated at the contrast calculation section 13 and compares the contrast value with the preset contrast value in focus to generates the direction of the deviation from the focal point and the amount of the deviation (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 12 to col. 4, line 36).
However, Nagasawa explicitly does not disclose the claimed use one or more trained neural networks to perform a machine vision task using the feature vector.
Iwase et al. teach that machine learning algorithms include techniques relating to deep learning such as a convolutional neural network (CNN), in a technique relating to deep learning, if the settings of parameters with respect to a layer group and a node group constituting a neural network differ, in some cases the degrees to which a tendency trained using training data is reproducible in the output data will differ (page 4, paragraph #0085 to paragraph #0090).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the trained neural networks as taught by Iwase et al. into Nagasawa’s system in order to improve the performance of the machine vision task.
In considering claim 7, the claimed wherein the machine vision task comprises an automated vision task for a medical imaging system is met by the medical imaging processing apparatus 400 (Figs. 4-5, page 8, paragraph #0114 to paragraph #0120 of Iwase et al.).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above and further the claimed an imaging device; and one or more processors operatively coupled to the imaging device is met by the image sensor 6 and the CPU 15 (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 12 to col. 4, line 36 of Nagasawa).
Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 7 above.
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa (US Patent No. 7,133,078 B2) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2021/0390696 A1) and further in view of Stevens (US Patent No. 10,878,540 B1).
In considering claim 5, the combination of Nagasawa and Iwase et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein the one or more circuits are further to: determine a plurality of objects within the image; and determine for at least one object of the plurality of objects, a value representative of a capability of the imaging device to detect contrast between the at least one object and a background in the image. Stevens teaches that In some embodiments, the contrast ratio processing system 122 may be part of the game editor 126, for example, the contrast ratio processing system 122 can detect whether the contrast ratio between a character in the game editor and the background meets a threshold contrast ratio (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 39 to col. 6, line 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the object and a background in the image as taught by Stevens into the combination of Nagasawa and Iwase et al.’s system in order to increase the accurately in determining the capability of the imaging device to detect the contrast.
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 5 above.
5. Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagasawa (US Patent No. 7,133,078 B2) in view of Iwase et al. (US 2021/0390696 A1) and further in view of Boorom (US Patent No. 9,531,968 B2).
In considering claim 6, the combination of Nagasawa and Iwase et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein the machine vision task comprises an automated vision task for an automobile. Boorom teaches that in some situations, imaging systems may form a portion of a larger system such as a surveillance system or a safety system for a vehicle (e.g., an automobile, a bus, or any other vehicle), in a vehicle safety system, images captured by the imaging system may be used by the vehicle safety system to determine environmental conditions surrounding the vehicle (col. 2, lines 19-65). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the automobile as taught by Boorom into the combination of Nagasawa and Iwase et al.’s system in order to improve the performance of the automobile.
Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 2-4, 9-11 and 16-18 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 dependent claims 2, 9 and 16 identifies the uniquely distinct features: “wherein to determine the contrast distribution for the image the one or more circuits are further to: determine pixel data from a pair of regions of the image, the pair of regions comprising a first region and a second region of the image, wherein the first region comprises a first plurality of pixels of the image and the second region comprises a second plurality of pixels of the image; determine a plurality of pixel pairs of the image, wherein a pixel pair of the plurality of pixel pairs comprises a first pixel from the first region and a second pixel from the second region; and calculate a plurality of contrasts based on the plurality of pixel pairs, wherein a contrast for the pixel pair is calculated between pixel data corresponding to the first pixel and pixel data corresponding to the second pixel of the pixel pair; wherein the contrast distribution is determined based on the plurality of contrasts”. The closest prior art, Nagasawa (US Patent No. 7,133,078 B2), Iwase et al. (US 2021/0390696 A1) and Stevens (US Patent No. 10,878,540 B1), either singularly or in combination, fail to anticipate or render the above underlined limitations obvious.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ray (US Patent No. 11,257,386 B1) discloses camera-based angle tracking of swarms for collision avoidance.
McCusker et al. (US Patent No. 9,532,013 B1) discloses sensor-based image(s) integrity determination system, device, and method.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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.
April 10, 2026
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights