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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments, filed 07/03/2025, have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. See the reasons sets forth below.
Applicant states, “Applicant submits that the Examiner has not met the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness and respectfully traverses the rejections for the following reasons. The distinguishable feature of the claimed invention (i.e., claim 1) includes, “when playing the video, subject a first frame displayed first as for starting playing the video to a noise reduction process using one or more frames after the first frame and subject a second frame other than the first frame to a cyclic noise reduction process using one or more frames preceding the second frame.”
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the present application specification fails to provide support for the claimed features.
Firstly, the claims recite “subject a first frame displayed first as the video to a noise reduction process using one or more frames after the first frame.” However, the process of ‘displaying the first frame” (frame 8) was performed last, as shown in figure 4, DISPLAYED IMAGE. Noise reduction process is not performed on the displayed image.
Second, the claims recite the feature of “subject a second frame other than the first frame to a cyclic noise reduction process using one or more frames preceding the second frame.” This feature is not also supported by the specification. In paragraph 0046 (PG PUB), the specification discloses:
[0046] For frames following the first frame, the control unit 109, on a frame-by- frame basis, carries out the cyclic NR process on an image in the present frame using an image in the immediately preceding frame subjected to the cyclic NR process, as indicated by an arrow 405. In the example shown in FIG. 4, for the second frame (frame 9), the control unit 109 carries out the cyclic NR process using the present frame (frame 9) and the immediately preceding frame (frame 8) subjected to the cyclic NR process. Thus, the cyclic NR process is successively carried out on frames following the first frame. It should be noted that the “Next frame” and the subsequent frames used in the cyclic NR process on the first frame are not displayed.
According to paragraph 0046 above and figure 4, the cyclic noise reduction is performed on the said second frame using the first frame (frame 8) and the second frame itself (frame 9). But the claims recite performing cyclic noise reduction based on “one or more frames,” and it doesn’t recite using the second frame itself and the said first frame.
Last, as stated before, Yamuchi discloses in paragraph 0024 the buffer holds data for at least 1 frame. In paragraphs 0025-0026 the prior art discloses detecting inter-frame difference using both F6 and F5 (paragraph 0025) and using F7 and F6 (paragraph 0026). It should further be noted that in paragraph 0032, Yamuchi discloses flicker reduction processing is performed on each of the picture types of the field or frame of the decoded moving image signal input from the decoder 11 in accordance with a setting to output flicker reduced moving image signal. The flicker noise is reduced using cyclic noise reduction processing.
Therefore, in view of the above, the Examiner believes the applied prior art still teaches the invention because of the reasons stated above and as stated in the detail office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
First, the independent claims recite the limitation, “when playing the video, subject a second frame other than the first frame to a cyclic noise reduction process using one or more frames preceding the second frame.” However, the present application fails to support the limitation. See the reason above and figure 4 of the present application.
Second, the independent claims recite, “subject a first frame displayed first as the video to a noise reduction process.” However, the specification does not disclose performing noise reduction process on displayed image. See also the reasons sets forth above.
Third, claims 5 and 6 also recite carrying out noise reduction process on a displayed first frame, however, that feature is not found in the specification as well.
Claims 2-10 and 12-18 inherit the deficiencies of independent claims, 1 and 19-20, and thereby are rejected under such.
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1 and 19 recite “one or more frames” in line 4 and again “one or more frames” in line 6; however, it is not clear whether the said “one or more frames” are the same on both line 4 and 6 or different. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 also recite “one or more frames” in line 6 and again “one or more frames” in line 8; however, it is not clear whether the said “one or more frames” are the same on both line 6 and 8 or different. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamauchi (US PG PUB 2011/0293000).
Regarding claim 1, Yamauchi discloses an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (see figure 4) that performs to:
obtain a video (see figure 1 and paragraph 0010 decoder receiving a coded moving image signal); and when playing the video, subject a first frame displayed first as the video to a noise reduction process using one or more frames after the first frame and subject a second frame other than the first frame to a cyclic noise reduction process using one or more frames preceding the second frame (see paragraph 0023 detecting inter-frame difference of decoded moving image signal; see paragraph 0024 when the inter-frame difference detects the change and image of the last-frame just prior to the frame to output as the inter-frame difference to the flicker reduction controller; see paragraph 0020 obtaining information; paragraph 0034 outputting coding processing information; paragraph 0040 reproducing recorded data; see also paragraph 0045; see also paragraphs 0025 and 0029 and also the previous and the above response).
Regarding claim 2, Yamauchi discloses a number of frames to be used in the cyclic noise reduction process varies according to a strength setting on the cyclic noise reduction process (see paragraph 0031 and also 0030 and 0032).
Regarding claim 3, Yamauchi discloses a predetermined limit is placed on the number of frames to be used in the cyclic noise reduction process (see paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 4, Yamauchi discloses one or more frames, which lie after the number of frames accumulated according to an exposure time period from the first frame, are used in the cyclic noise reduction process (see figure 2 and paragraph 0021).
Regarding claim 8, Yamauchi discloses the one or more frames to be applied to the noise reduction process carried out on the first frame are not displayed (see paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 9, Yamauchi discloses to play a combined video obtained by combining a plurality of videos together, a frame at a point of combination is regarded as the first frame, and the noise reduction process is carried out on the first frame (see paragraphs 0025-0026).
Regarding claim 12, Yamauchi discloses based on whether or not an evaluation value representing an index of a tendency of an afterimage to appear in a frame has reached a predetermined threshold value, the at least one processor determines whether or not to carry out the noise reduction process on the first frame using one or more frames after the first frame (see paragraphs 0026-0028).
Regarding claim 13, Yamauchi discloses the evaluation value is calculated based on a result of an analysis on the amount of movement of an image in a frame or the amount of movement of a subject in the image (see paragraph 0010 and 0029-0030).
Regarding claim 14, Yamauchi discloses when the evaluation value is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value, the cyclic noise reduction process with a decreased cyclic coefficient is carried out on the first frame (see paragraphs 0031-0032).
Regarding claim 15, Yamauchi discloses when the evaluation value is equal to or greater than the predetermined threshold value, a noise reduction process that is not cyclic is carried out on the first frame (see paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 16, Yamauchi discloses a setting is made such that a noise reduction effect achieved by the noise reduction process that is not cyclic increases, as a noise reduction effect achieved by the cyclic noise reduction process increases (see paragraphs 0030 and 0032).
Regarding claim 17, Yamauchi discloses information indicating whether or not one or more frames after the first frame is allowed to be used for the noise reduction process on the first frame is added to each frame of the video (see paragraph 0028 and also paragraphs 0025 and 0034-0035).
Regarding claim 18, Yamauchi discloses the video is a RAW video (see paragraphs 0042-0043).
Regarding claims 19-20, the limtiaotn of claims 19-20 can be found in claim 1. Therefore claims 19-20 are analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
Claims 5-7 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (US PG PUB 2011/0293000) in view of Cote et al. (US PG PUB 2025/0047996) and further in view of Tanigawa (US Pat. No. 11, 258, 927).
Regarding claim 5, although Yamauchi discloses a display screen for displaying moving image with a plurality of picture types and selecting pictures to undergo noise reduction process (see paragraphs 0017-0019 and 0024-0025); the combination of Yamauchi and Cote fails to specifically disclose carrying out a developing process on one or more frames to be used when the noise reduction process is carried out on a first frame displayed first as the currently selected video while the screen is displayed.
In the same field of endeavor Tanigawa discloses while the screen is displayed, carry out a developing process on one or more frames to be used when the noise reduction process is carried out on a first frame displayed first as the currently selected video (see figures 4A, 4B, 5A-5C; col. 9 lines 7-27 frames in unit area; the input image data is data of a moving image and the level of luminance signal changes; see col. 9 lines 1-6, displaying image of an Nth frame and processing it using noise removal device, see col. 9 lines 28-col. 10 line 20 processing is performed on the image while it is in unit area; see also abstract and col. 5 line 66-col. 6 line 67).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Tanigawa it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above combination by performing noise reduction process while displaying the frame(s) in order to compare luminance signal; detect stillness using luminance signal and detect still image.
Regarding claim 6, Tanigawa discloses when the currently selected video is changed on the screen, the developing process is carried out on one or more frames to be used when the noise reduction process on a first frame displayed first as a newly selected video (see col. 9 line 60-col. 10 line 38). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 7, Tanigawa discloses in response to confirmation of a video selection on the screen, the noise reduction process is carried out on the first frame using the one or more frames that have been subjected to the developing process (see col. 9 lines 7-38). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 10, Tanigawa discloses according to a speed at which a developing process is carried out on the frame, the noise reduction process is carried out on the frame at the point of combination while the combined video is being played, or the noise reduction process is carried out on the frame at the point of combination before the combined video is played (see col. 10 line 49-col. 11 line 13). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 11, Tanigawa discloses in a case where it is possible to complete the developing process on the frame within a time period not longer than half of a play cycle of the combined video, the noise reduction process is carried out on the frame at the point of combination while the combined video is being played, and in a case where it is not possible to complete the developing process on the frames within the time period not longer than half of the play cycle of the combined video, the noise reduction process is carried out on the frame at 10 the point of combination before the combined video is played (see col. 10 line 49-col. 11 line 13). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 5 above.
Note to the Applicant: The USPTO considers the Applicant’s “or” language to be anticipated by any reference containing one of the subsequent corresponding elements.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484 October 21, 2025