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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
“On page 2 of the Office Action, the Examiner has objected to the Title of the Invention alleging that the title is not descriptive. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant notes that the title of the invention is:
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR GENERATING AN OPTIMIZED COLOR FILTER FOR
MODIFYING THE SPECTRAL RESPONSE OF A VISION SYSTEM
Applicant notes that the preamble for claim 1 states "a method for generating a colour filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system." Similarly, claim 15 recites "a system for generating a color filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system." Applicant is unsure how the title could be amended to be more descriptive when the preamble of the claims specifically recites the title and is directed to systems and/or methods for generating a color filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the objection to the title be withdrawn.”
However, what was requested was a new title that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed… and not just recitation of the preamble. Indeed, as the preamble is widely deemed and interpreted as indication of the prior art, it is interesting to have Applicant recite on the record by their own arguments, that their invention is indeed just prior art! Thanks for doing my job for me. But seriously, the objection is really a courtesy to the Applicant, as the Examiner has the authority to change the title (see the MPEP), a courtesy provided so as to give the Applicant the opportunity to fully control the prosecution of their application. So, it’s ok to argue and not amend the title, as eventually the Examiner will step in and provide the title to the application.
Applicant further states:
“Double Patenting Rejections of Claims 1-15
On page 6 of the Office Action, claims 1-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-23 of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/292,995. Applicant submits a Terminal Disclaimer to overcome this double patenting rejection.”
Thank-you. However, the Terminal Disclaimer has been denied 11/06/25, as the POA is missing? Evidently, “The person who signed the terminal disclaimer (only for applications filed on or after September 16, 2012 - is not the applicant, patentee or an attorney or agent of record. 37 CFR 1.321(a) and (b). (See FP 14.26.08) - failed to state his/her capacity to sign for the juristic entity, and he/she has not been established as being authorized to act on behalf of the applicant. (See FP 14.26.09).”
Thus, the double patenting rejection must be maintained.
Applicant further argues:
“Claims 1-15 Do Not Invoke and Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f)
On page 2 of the Office Action, claims 1-15 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C.§ 112(f) because the claim limitations allegedly use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Applicant notes that none of the pending claims, as amended, recite "means for" or "step for" elements. As such, no presumption of a claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) applies to the pending claims as outlined in MPEP § 2181.”
That is agreed: “Applicant notes that none of the pending claims, as amended, recite "means for" or "step for" elements” but in the prior Office Action it also stated: “This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier”
Applicant further argues:
“Even assuming, arguendo, that one or more claim elements invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), Applicant submits that various structures corresponding to those elements are described throughout the Specification and illustrated throughout the Drawings”
Thank-you for agreeing with the Examiner, that is why it was not a rejection.
Applicant further argues:
“even if one or more claim elements were to invoke an interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), such an interpretation would apply on an element-by-element (or limitation-by-limitation) basis”
The interpretation was applied to but one element as noted in the prior Office Action: “input interface configured to receive” in claim 15.
The Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) still stands.
Applicant further argues:
“Office Action alleges that pages 23-24 of Finlayson disclose this element. Applicant respectfully disagrees. In particular, Finlayson does not appear to show or suggest generating a model that includes a bounded total transmittance of light set by a predetermined parameter. Indeed, Finlayson makes no reference to generating a model or use of one that has bounded transmittance of light”
However, Applicant has not addressed the actual citation provided: “(“Embodiments of the present invention seek to determine properties of a filter that, when placed in its imaging path, make a camera more colorimetric. How then can the effect of a filter given the linear algebra formulation of colour formation be modelled? Suppose f (l) denotes a transmittance filter and C(A) a colour signal spectrum. Physically, the light passing though the filter is equal to the product of the spectra f(A)C(A). The filter that best matches the Luther condition can be found by minimizing: Here Q and c are respectively N x3 matrices capturing the camera spectral sensitivities and the XYZ colour matching functions. N refers to the sampling number across the visible range (31 in the above example but as indicated, this may be varied)”, page 23-24)” which clearly indicates a model “as modeled” and parameters “f (l) denotes a transmittance filter and C(A) a colour signal spectrum”. Please note that Applicant’s arguments to matters found in their Specification will not be read into the claims UNTIL thay are amended to put them there. Further the term: “bounded total transmittance of light” will be given its broadest reasonable interpretation until Applicant amends their claim language to make it otherwise.
Thus the Applicant’s arguments are found not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “input interface configured to receive” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created
doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the
unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent
and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double
patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at
least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have
been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46
USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed.
Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619
(CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d)
may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory
double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be
Application/Control Number: 17/292,995 commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a
nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the
terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior
Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete.
See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR
1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for
reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for
consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be
used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the
application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25,
PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal
Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal
Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately
upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double
patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 23 of copending Application
No. 17/292,995 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical,
they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the pending
application are wholly anticipated by the claims of the copending Application.
Instant Application ‘534
copending Application No. 17/292,995
1. A method for generating a color filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system, the method comprising:
receiving an RGB spectral response of the vision system for a color target under predetermined illumination;
generating a model, using the RGB spectral response, of the vision system when subject to a filter, the model including a bounded total transmittance of light by the filter that is set by a predetermined parameter; executing, by a processor of a computer system, computer program instructions configured to apply the model to a bilinear optimisation problem that simultaneously determines: i) a color correction matrix to transform the RGB spectral response to XYZ color space; and, ii) parameters of the color filter; executing computer program instructions configured solving the bilinear optimisation problem; and, providing a color filter using the parameters.
1. A method for generating a colour filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system, the method comprising:
receiving an RGB spectral response of the vision system for a colour target under predetermined illumination;
executing, by a processor of a computer system, computer program instructions configured to apply the RGB spectral response to a bilinear optimisation problem that simultaneously determines: i) a colour correction matrix to transform the RGB spectral response to XYZ colour space; and, ii) parameters of the colour filter; executing computer program instructions configured solving the bilinear optimisation problem; and, providing a colour filter using the parameters.
15. A system for generating a color filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system, the system comprising:
an input interface configured to receive an RGB spectral response of the vision system for a color target under predetermined illumination;
a processor configured to execute computer program instructions configured to generate a model, using the RGB spectral response, of the vision system when subject to a filter, the model including a bounded total transmittance of light by the filter that is set by a predetermined parameter; and, computer program instructions to apply the model to a bilinear optimization problem and solve the problem to simultaneously determine:
i) a color correction matrix to transform the RGB spectral response to XYZ color space; and, ii) parameters of the color filter; and, an output interface configured to provide the parameters for the color filter.
23. A system for generating a colour filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system, the system comprising:
an input interface configured to receive an RGB spectral response of the vision system for a colour target under predetermined illumination;
a processor configured to execute computer program instructions configured to apply the RGB spectral response to a bilinear optimisation problem and solve the problem to simultaneously determine:
i) a colour correction matrix to transform the RGB spectral response to XYZ colour space; and, ii) parameters of the colour filter; and, an output interface configured to provide the parameters for the colour filter.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2020/099860 to Finlayson et al. as published 5/22/20, more than a year prior to Applicant’s filing date of 10/31/22.
Regarding claim 1. Finlayson discloses a method for generating a color filter for modifying the spectral response of a vision system (Abstract), the method comprising:
receiving an RGB spectral response of the vision system for a color target under predetermined illumination (“receiving an RGB spectral response of the vision system for a colour target under predetermined illumination”, Abstract);
generating a model, using the RGB spectral response, of the vision system when subject to a filter, the model including a bounded total transmittance of light by the filter that is set by a predetermined parameter (“Embodiments of the present invention seek to determine properties of a filter that, when placed in its imaging path, make a camera more colorimetric. How then can the effect of a filter given the linear algebra formulation of colour formation be modelled? Suppose f (l) denotes a transmittance filter and C(A) a colour signal spectrum. Physically, the light passing though the filter is equal to the product of the spectra f(A)C(A). The filter that best matches the Luther condition can be found by minimizing: Here Q and c are respectively N x3 matrices capturing the camera spectral sensitivities and the XYZ colour matching functions. N refers to the sampling number across the visible range (31 in the above example but as indicated, this may be varied)”, page 23-24);
executing, by a processor of a computer system, computer program instructions configured to apply the model to a bilinear optimisation problem that simultaneously determines: i) a color correction matrix to transform the RGB spectral response to XYZ color space; and, ii) parameters of the color filter; executing computer program instructions configured solving the bilinear optimisation problem (“The system further includes a processor 120 configured to execute computer program instructions configured to apply the RGB spectral response to a bilinear optimisation problem and solve the problem to simultaneously determine: i) a colour correction matrix to transform the RGB spectral response to XYZ colour space; and, ii) parameters of the colour filter.”, page 23); and,
providing a color filter using the parameters (“Further, the system includes an output interface 130 configured to provide the parameters for the colour filter”, page 23).
Regarding claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the bounded total transmittance comprises a bound that the average light power transmitted by the filter must be greater than a target percentage (“Embodiments of the present invention seek to determine properties of a filter that, when placed in its imaging path, make a camera more colorimetric. How then can the effect of a filter given the linear algebra formulation of colour formation be modelled? Suppose f (l) denotes a transmittance filter and C(A) a colour signal spectrum. Physically, the light passing though the filter is equal to the product of the spectra f(A)C(A). The filter that best matches the Luther condition can be found by minimizing: Here Q and c are respectively N x3 matrices capturing the camera spectral sensitivities and the XYZ colour matching functions. N refers to the sampling number across the visible range (31 in the above example but as indicated, this may be varied)”, page 23-24).
Regarding claim 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the bounded total transmittance comprises average transmittance across the spectral sensitivity of the reference imaging system (“Embodiments of the present invention seek to determine properties of a filter that, when placed in its imaging path, make a camera more colorimetric. How then can the effect of a filter given the linear algebra formulation of colour formation be modelled? Suppose f (l) denotes a transmittance filter and C(A) a colour signal spectrum. Physically, the light passing though the filter is equal to the product of the spectra f(A)C(A). The filter that best matches the Luther condition can be found by minimizing: Here Q and c are respectively N x3 matrices capturing the camera spectral sensitivities and the XYZ colour matching functions. N refers to the sampling number across the visible range (31 in the above example but as indicated, this may be varied)”, page 23-24).
Regarding claim 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the RGB and XYZ responses are, respectively, for a camera and the standard observer (“The first visual system may be a colour camera and the second may have spectral sensitivities that are linearly related to human visual system spectral sensitivities.”, page 5)
Regarding claim 5. The method of claim 1 wherein the RGB and XYZ responses are, respectively, the color matching functions for different human observers (“The second visual system may be related to an observer with normal colour vision and the first may be related to an observer who suffers from colour blindness”, page 6).
Regarding claim 6. The method of claim 1 wherein the RGB and XYZ responses are, respectively, for a first and second imaging system (“According to an aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for spectrally modulating the light entering a first visual system so that the modified visual system's response is linearly related to the response of a second visual system observing the unmodulated light.”, page 9).
Regarding claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the RGB spectral response is obtained from an observer with different color response and XYZ color space is determined by an observer a normal color response (“The colour matching routine may be a CIE XYZ colour matching function. The RGB spectral response may be obtained from an observer with normal colour vision and XYZ colour space may be determined by an observer suffering from colour blindness”, page 6).
Regarding claim 8. The method of claim 1, wherein the spectral response of the vision system modified by the filter comprises spectral sensitivity (“The colour matching problem formulation has an interesting and useful property. If we make filter such that the new filtered sensitivities are linearly related to the standard observer then the colour matches (the mixture combinations) found for the filtered sensitivities is the same as for the standard observer. Put another way a visual system with 3 spectral sensitivity functions implies a set of colour matching functions given a set of primary lights”, page 11).
Regarding claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the RGB responses are for a color target that is illuminated by a reference set of illuminant spectra and has predetermined surface reflectances, comprising generating a bounded transmittance filter that linearly predicts the responses to the same spectral data for the XYZ imaging system (“The filter and the corresponding transform matrix for each camera device with given testing colour signal inputs are calculated through Algorithm 2. Note that in order to simulate a physically reliable filter, we constrain its parameters in the range of [0, 100%] and for the current method, the experimental results presented here (in Table 2) are based on this constraint. Taking a Canon D50 camera as an example, the filter found by bilinear least-squares is shown at the top of Figure 4a representing the transmittance within [0, 100%]. By using the Quadratic programming technique, the boundaries for filter parameters can be easily adjusted. In Figure 4b a variant is shown where the filter transmittance is higher constrained to be between 50% and 100% (it can be regarded as a high-transparent filter which can result in less noise issues)”, page 23).
Regarding claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein the RGB responses for the product of the light and reflectance spectra are perturbed by a model of spectral noise, comprising generating a bounded transmittance filter that linearly predicts the responses to the noise free spectral data for the XYZ imaging system (“The filter and the corresponding transform matrix for each camera device with given testing colour signal inputs are calculated through Algorithm 2. Note that in order to simulate a physically reliable filter, we constrain its parameters in the range of [0, 100%] and for the current method, the experimental results presented here (in Table 2) are based on this constraint. Taking a Canon D50 camera as an example, the filter found by bilinear least-squares is shown at the top of Figure 4a representing the transmittance within [0, 100%]. By using the Quadratic programming technique, the boundaries for filter parameters can be easily adjusted. In Figure 4b a variant is shown where the filter transmittance is higher constrained to be between 50% and 100% (it can be regarded as a high-transparent filter which can result in less noise issues)”, page 23).
Regarding claim 11. The method of claim 1, wherein the RGB responses are for a color target that is illuminated by a reference set of illuminant spectra and has predetermined surface reflectances where the RGB responses are perturbed by a filter-dependent noise component, comprising generating a bounded transmittance filter that linearly predicts the responses to the, noise-free, target spectral data for the XYZ imaging system (“The filter and the corresponding transform matrix for each camera device with given testing colour signal inputs are calculated through Algorithm 2. Note that in order to simulate a physically reliable filter, we constrain its parameters in the range of [0, 100%] and for the current method, the experimental results presented here (in Table 2) are based on this constraint. Taking a Canon D50 camera as an example, the filter found by bilinear least-squares is shown at the top of Figure 4a representing the transmittance within [0, 100%]. By using the Quadratic programming technique, the boundaries for filter parameters can be easily adjusted. In Figure 4b a variant is shown where the filter transmittance is higher constrained to be between 50% and 100% (it can be regarded as a high-transparent filter which can result in less noise issues)”, page 23).
Regarding claim 12. The method of claim 1, further comprising constraining the generated filter to be smooth (“By adopting models of typical spectra the second preferred embodiment (algorithm 2 discussed below) supports greater flexibility in the filter design. In this embodiment we can find highly transmissive filters which are smooth (and so manufactureable) and also, in practice, allow the first visual system to capture responses in linear relation to a second visual system”, page 15).
Regarding claim 13. The method of claim 1, further comprising incorporate models of image noise into the model and solving the bilinear optimization problem to find a solution that is robust to the presence of noise (“The filter and the corresponding transform matrix for each camera device with given testing colour signal inputs are calculated through Algorithm 2. Note that in order to simulate a physically reliable filter, we constrain its parameters in the range of [0, 100%] and for the current method, the experimental results presented here (in Table 2) are based on this constraint. Taking a Canon D50 camera as an example, the filter found by bilinear least-squares is shown at the top of Figure 4a representing the transmittance within [0, 100%]. By using the Quadratic programming technique, the boundaries for filter parameters can be easily adjusted. In Figure 4b a variant is shown where the filter transmittance is higher constrained to be between 50% and 100% (it can be regarded as a high-transparent filter which can result in less noise issues)”, page 23).
Regarding claim 14. The method of claim 1, further comprising varying the predetermined parameter across a range of parameter values, solving the bilinear optimization for the model with each varied predetermined parameter and determining a filter from the solutions that optimises the ratio of filter transmittance over fitting error (“The filter and the corresponding transform matrix for each camera device with given testing colour signal inputs are calculated through Algorithm 2. Note that in order to simulate a physically reliable filter, we constrain its parameters in the range of [0, 100%] and for the current method, the experimental results presented here (in Table 2) are based on this constraint. Taking a Canon D50 camera as an example, the filter found by bilinear least-squares is shown at the top of Figure 4a representing the transmittance within [0, 100%]. By using the Quadratic programming technique, the boundaries for filter parameters can be easily adjusted. In Figure 4b a variant is shown where the filter transmittance is higher constrained to be between 50% and 100% (it can be regarded as a high-transparent filter which can result in less noise issues)”, page 23).
Regarding claim 15. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 1.
Regarding claim 16. Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons and rational as provided above for claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 7,130,467 to Bronder et al. discloses representing source data with predefined data patterns, or identifying predefined data patterns in source data, where each data pattern includes a unique combination of pattern elements, without comparing every pattern element of each data pattern to the source data. A hierarchical structure of relationships between the data patterns is predetermined in an initialization stage by comparing the data patterns to identify identical pattern elements among groups of the data patterns. Selected node elements in a resulting relationship tree are compared to the source data to determined deviations. The deviations are propagated and accumulated throughout the relationship structure of the tree, and data patterns having the minimum deviation are selected to represent corresponding source data cells. A graphics pipeline preferably is used to determine the deviations and select data patterns in real time.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq. whose telephone number is (571)270-5976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30- 6:00.
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, Benny Tieu can be reached at (571) 272-7490. 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.
CHRISTOPHER D. WAIT, Esq.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2682
/CHRISTOPHER WAIT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2682