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 .
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.
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 1-5 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 1 recites “obtaining a template for creating combined moving image data in which a plurality of moving image data is combined, and which includes information on at least one extraction condition defined based on a plurality of types of data”. It is not clear what both underlined phrases are referring to.
Claim 1 also recites “extracting a plurality of second moving image data that is moving image data in a predetermined period including a timing that conditions one or more the extraction conditions indicate are satisfied from first moving image data captured by an in-vehicle camera”. This limitation is not readable. Because the phrase “a timing that conditions” is not understandable. Similarly “extraction conditions indicate are satisfied from first moving image data” is not understandable.
Claims 2-5 are also rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim 3 recites “determines a timing at which the conditions indicated by the extraction conditions are satisfied”. Here the phrase “a timing” is indefinite as there is another timing in claim 1. So the scope of the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200251108 “Suzuki”) in view of KOMATSU et al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20240294115 “Komatsu”).
Regarding claim 1 Suzuki teaches An information processing apparatus comprising a controller comprising at least one processor (Fig. 5 element 210) configured to perform:
obtaining a template for creating moving image data, and which includes information on at least one extraction condition defined based on a plurality of types of data (“[0087] For example, the estimator 220 performs an analysis process such as template matching on the first image data and detects one or both of a direction of a face and a direction of eyes of the occupant P from the first image data. For example, the estimator 220 extracts outline information of a head part from the first image data, performs matching with a predetermined template on the basis of arrangement information of parts (eyes, a nose, and a mouse) included in the extracted outline area, and derives a direction of a face”) but is silent about creating combined moving image data in which a plurality of moving image data is combined;
Komatsu teaches creating combined moving image data in which a plurality of moving image data is combined (Komatsu “[0543] Then, the image processing unit 711 generates edited moving image data by, for example, combining extracted frames. For example, the image processing unit 711 generates the edited moving image data by connecting the extracted frames in a time series”).
Suzuki and Komatsu are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Suzuki by creating combined moving image data in which a plurality of moving image data is combined as taught by Komatsu.
The motivation for the above is to create an image that consist of all related information according to an event.
Suzuki modified by Komatsu teaches extracting a plurality of second moving image data that is moving image data in a predetermined period including a timing that conditions one or more the extraction conditions indicate are satisfied from first moving image data captured by an in-vehicle camera (Suzuki “[0089] Instead of (or in addition to) estimating the first direction using the first image data, the estimator 220 may estimate the first direction on the basis of a directivity of speech from the occupant P. In this case, the estimator 220 estimates the first direction, for example, on the basis of speech acquired from a plurality of microphones selected out of the plurality of microphones 106A to 106E. [0104] FIG. 12 is a flowchart illustrating a process flow which is performed by the agent device 100 according to the first embodiment. First, the acquirer 122 of the agent controller 120 acquires speech data of an occupant which is collected by the microphones 106 (Step S100). Then, the acquirer 122 acquires first image data which is captured by the inside camera 104”.
Komatsu “[0512] The metadata regarding the image capturing date and time includes, for example, at least one of the date, time, or the like at the time of image capturing.
[0513] The metadata regarding the situation of the vehicle 1B includes, for example, at least one of speed, acceleration, traveling direction, destination, or state of the vehicle 1B (for example, presence or absence of failure, presence or absence of accident, charge amount, and the like).
[0537] Furthermore, for example, the image processing unit 711 extracts a frame satisfying a given condition on the basis of the metadata); and
creating the combined moving image data by combining the second moving image data extracted according to the template (Komatsu “[0543] Then, the image processing unit 711 generates edited moving image data by, for example, combining extracted frames. For example, the image processing unit 711 generates the edited moving image data by connecting the extracted frames in a time series”).
Regarding claim 2 Suzuki modified by Komatsu teaches wherein the conditions indicated by the extraction conditions include at least one of: (1) that the in-vehicle camera has captured a specific object, (2) that sensors included in a vehicle equipped with the in-vehicle camera has detected predetermined data, (3) that the vehicle has passed through a specific point, or (4) that a position of a shift lever equipped by the vehicle is in a predetermined position (Suzuki “[0087] For example, the estimator 220 performs an analysis process such as template matching on the first image data and detects one or both of a direction of a face and a direction of eyes of the occupant P from the first image data”).
Regarding claim 3 Suzuki modified Komatsu teaches wherein the controller receives the first moving image data and data detected by sensors included in the vehicle from the vehicle equipped with the in-vehicle camera, and determines a timing at which the conditions indicated by the extraction conditions are satisfied, based on the data, in creation of the combined moving image data (Komatsu “[0539] For example, the image processing unit 711 extracts a frame when a specific event occurs on the basis of the metadata. For example, in a case where the vehicle 1B has an accident or an accident occurs around the vehicle 1B, the image processing unit 711 preferentially extracts frames of a time zone before and after the accident. [0543] Then, the image processing unit 711 generates edited moving image data by, for example, combining extracted frames. For example, the image processing unit 711 generates the edited moving image data by connecting the extracted frames in a time series”).
Regarding claim 4 Suzuki modified Komatsu teaches wherein when the conditions indicated by the extraction conditions are satisfied, the controller extracts the first moving image data captured by the in-vehicle camera at a corresponding timing, and uses the extracted moving image as the second moving image data (Komatsu “[0543] Then, the image processing unit 711 generates edited moving image data by, for example, combining extracted frames. For example, the image processing unit 711 generates the edited moving image data by connecting the extracted frames in a time series”).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki modified Komatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ogawa (US Pat. Pub. No. 20200280675 “Ogawa”).
Regarding claim 5 Suzuki modified Komatsu is silent about wherein the controller obtains plurality of templates in which information of different contents related to the extraction conditions is set respectively, and select one of the plurality of templates in creation of the combined moving image data.
Ogawa teaches obtain plurality of templates in which information of different contents s is set respectively, and select one of the plurality of templates in creation of combined image data (ABSTRACT “acquiring a second characteristic amount relating to a shape of a frame included in each of a plurality of templates; controlling a display to display a selection screen for selecting one template, the selection screen showing, as a particular template, a template including a frame of the second characteristic amount indicative of a shape corresponding to the first characteristic amount such that the particular template is distinguishable from a template other than the particular template; receiving a second selection operation of selecting a selection template on the selection screen; creating a composite image by combining the shot image with a frame included in the selection template; and outputting the composite image”);
Ogawa and Suzuki modified by Komatsu are analogous art as both of them are related to image processing.
Therefore it would have been obvious for an ordinary skilled person in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to have modified Suzuki modified by Komatsu by having the controller obtaining plurality of templates in which information of different contents related to the extraction conditions is set respectively, and selecting one of the plurality of templates in creation of the combined moving image data similar to obtaining plurality of templates in which information of different contents s is set respectively, and selecting one of the plurality of templates in creation of combined image data as taught by Ogawa.
The motivation for the above is to enhance the applicability of Suzuki to provide a choice of selection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Satzoda et. al. (US Pat. Pub. No. 20190265712) receives image data and extracts driving context and driver data satisfying a predetermined condition.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER whose telephone number is (571)270-3454. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am-4 pm PST.
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, Said Broome can be reached at (571)272-2931. 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.
/SAPTARSHI MAZUMDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights