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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 3-7 contain mathematical symbols and graphs that are not secured by black ink. The quality of these characters raise legibility issues for reproduction purposes. See C.F.R. 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0004] "A-Law and
[
]
-Law";
[0049], [0055], [0067] contain equations formula quality issues that raise legibility issues for reproduction (see C.F.R. 1.52(a)(1)(iv)).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 25-48 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 25, the claim recites “method to improve information quality”. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite as to the criteria by which an improvement in information quality would be considered “improved”.
Claim 25 further recites adapting the time-constant over time, for each one of the elements in the input data sequences “based on a relationship between the noise profile and the signal profile”. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. It is indefinite as to whether the adapting is implemented dependently on the relationship itself, or whether the manner of adapting is based on the relationship. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “based on” means that the adapting is implemented dependently as a function of the relationship itself, or whether “based on” means that there are specific aspects of the adapting that are similar to the relationship; in the latter case, it is indefinite as to what level of similarity would be required for the “based on” language to be apt. For example, the metes and bounds of the relationship are indefinite, given that the metes and bounds of this limitation may change depending on how the relationship between the noise profile and signal profile may vary.
Claims 26-45 inherit the same deficiency by reasons of dependence, and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 30, the claim recites estimating a signal-to-noise ratio of the input data sequences “based on the relationship between the noise profile and the signal profile”. However, the metes and bounds of this limitation are indefinite. It is indefinite as to whether the estimating is implemented dependently on the relationship itself, or whether the manner of estimating is based on the relationship. For example, it is indefinite as to whether the “based on” means that the estimating is implemented dependently as a function of the relationship itself, or whether “based on” means that there are certain aspects of the estimating that are similar to the relationship; in the latter case, it is indefinite as to what level of similarity would be required for the “based on” language to be apt. For example, the metes and bounds of the relationship are indefinite, given that the metes and bounds of this limitation may change depending on how the relationship between the noise profile and signal profile may vary.
Claims 31-36 inherit the same deficiency by reasons of dependence, and are similarly rejected.
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 25-30, 37, 45-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017132600 A1 Trejo et al. (hereinafter “Trejo”, as cited on the IDS filed 12/16/2022) in view of EP 0852052 B1 S
o
¨
lve (hereinafter “Ericsson”, as cited on the IDS filed 12/16/2022).
Regarding claim 25, Trejo discloses a computer-implemented data processing method to improve information quality in data sequences by attenuating noise in the data sequences ([Abstract], [0002]), the method comprising:
receiving, from at least one sensor (Fig. 2 “201” [0050]), input data sequences having a plurality of elements ([0016] first frame contains pixel data), wherein each of the elements has at least one dimensional component ([0048] “201” captures images; [0106] images composed of RGB values);
independently performing, by a processor (Fig. 2 “292” [0048], [0157]), a spectral analysis on the at least one dimensional component of each of the elements ([0048], [0106] images composed of RGB values) to estimate a signal profile (Fig. 3A “307” [0070-0071], [0090] characteristics of the signal) of the input data sequences ([0016], [0028] first frame contains pixel data);
estimating, by the processor (Fig. 2 “292” [0048], [0157]), a noise profile (Fig. 3A “311” [0070], [0076] characteristics of the noise) of the input data sequences ([0016] first frame contains pixel data) using calibration data ([0045] electrical variations with image capture sensor) associated with the at least one sensor (Fig. 2 “201” [0050]);
dynamically calculating, by the processor (Fig. 2 “292” [0048], [0157]), a time-constant (Fig. 3B “stdCurr” [0045-0046], [0078-0079], [0096]) for a noise attenuation filter (Fig. 2 “210” [0048]), and adapting the time-constant over time, for each one of the elements in the input data sequences ([0078-0079]), based on a relationship between the noise profile (Fig. 3A “311” [0070], [0076] characteristics of the noise) and the signal profile (Fig. 3A “307” [0090] characteristics of the signal);
applying, by the processor (Fig. 2 “292” [0048], [0157]), the noise attenuation filter for each one of the elements to each respective one of the elements to filter the input data sequences to derive filtered data sequences (Fig. 2 “210” output to “212” [0017-0018], [0049], [0058]); and
outputting the filtered data sequences (Fig. 2 “212” [0049], [0059-60]).
Trejo appears to be silent to explicitly performing a spectral analysis.
Ericsson discloses a spectral analysis (Fig. 10 “270” [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Trejo’s method to further comprise a spectral analysis as disclosed by Ericsson’s features because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of noise reduction architecture ([0001]). Modifying with Ericsson’s spectral analysis capabilities would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as doing so would yield significant improvements as the modification would provide Trejo’s method the ability to process speech and audio signals ([0013], [0050]) of which would not significantly increase the number of calculations required ([0051]). Using Ericsson’s spectral analysis features to provide a predictable result in Trejo’s method before the effective filing date would have been obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Trejo’s method was ready for improvement to incorporate further processing capabilities of other types of signals via the spectral analysis for noise reduction as doing so would be beneficial without significant number of extra calculations.
Regarding claim 26, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
for at least one of the plurality of elements, the at least one dimensional component of that element ([0048], [0106] images composed of RGB values) comprises a temporal component ([0019-0020], [0044]).
Regarding claim 27, the teachings addressed in the claim 26 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
the at least one dimensional component ([0048], [0106] images composed of RGB values) further comprises a spatial component ([0022], [0025], [0044]).
Regarding claim 28, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
for at least one of the plurality of elements, the at least one dimensional component of that element ([0048], [0106] images composed of RGB values) comprises a temporal component ([0019-0020], [0044]) derived from that at least one dimensional component ([0058], [0105]).
Regarding claim 29, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
the noise attenuation filter (Fig. 2 “210” [0048]) comprises a low-pass filter having the time-constant (Fig. 3B “stdCurr” [0045-0046], [0078-0079], [0096]).
Trejo appears to be silent to disclosing a low-pass filter.
Ericsson discloses a low-pass filter (Fig. 4 “406, 408” [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Trejo’s method to further comprise a low pass filter as disclosed by Ericsson’s features because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of noise reduction architecture ([0001]). Modifying with Ericsson’s low-pass filter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as doing so would yield significant improvements as the modification would provide Trejo’s method the ability to process speech and audio signals ([0013], [0050]) of which would not significantly increase the number of calculations required ([0051]) via the utilization of the low pass filters ([0026]). Using Ericsson’s low pass filters features to provide a predictable result in Trejo’s method before the effective filing date would have been obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Trejo’s method was ready for improvement to incorporate further processing capabilities of other types of signals via the low pass filters for noise reduction as doing so would be beneficial without significant number of extra calculations.
Regarding claim 30, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method further comprising as Trejo discloses:
estimating a signal-to-noise ratio (Fig. 4A “401” [0068]) of the input data sequences ([0016] first frame contains pixel data) based on the relationship between the noise profile (Fig. 3A “311” [0070], [0076] characteristics of the noise) and the signal profile (Fig. 3A “307” [0090] characteristics of the signal).
Regarding claim 37, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method further comprising as Trejo discloses:
dynamically compressing a dynamic range of the filtered data sequences ([0045]
S
i
g
n
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
/
M
a
x
S
i
g
n
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
, [0053], [0072]) by applying an input gain ([0045-0046], [0068] G) to the filtered data sequences to derive corrected filtered data sequences ([0045] std(Noise), [0078-0080]).
Regarding claim 45, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
the input data sequences ([0016] first frame contains pixel data) are video data of any modality ([0005-0006]) and the elements comprise pixels ([0110-0113]).
Regarding claim 46, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
the input data sequences ([0016] first frame contains pixel data) are video data of any modality ([0005-0006]) and the elements comprise at least one of color and wavelength channels ([0110-0113] RGB).
Regarding claim 47, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
the input data sequences ([0016] first frame contains pixel data) are audio data of any modality and the elements ([0048], [0106]) comprise at least one of spectrograms and frequency bands derived from the audio data.
Trejo appears to be silent to explicitly disclosing audio signals of any modality that comprise at least one of spectrograms and frequency bands derived from the audio data.
Ericsson discloses audio signals of any modality ([0017]) that comprise at least one of spectrograms and frequency bands derived from the audio data ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Trejo’s method to further comprise audio signal processing capabilities and associated characteristics as disclosed by Ericsson’s features because they are in the claimed invention’s same field of endeavor of noise reduction architecture ([0001]). Modifying with Ericsson’s audio signals would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as doing so would yield significant improvements as the modification would provide Trejo’s method the ability to process speech and audio signals ([0013], [0050]) of which would not significantly increase the number of calculations required ([0051]). Using Ericsson’s audio signals features to provide a predictable result in Trejo’s method before the effective filing date would have been obvious since one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Trejo’s method was ready for improvement further processing capabilities of other types of signals via the audio signals as doing so would be beneficial without significant number of extra calculations.
Regarding claim 48, the teachings addressed in the claim 25 analysis and rejection are incorporated, and Trejo in view of Ericsson disclose the method wherein Trejo discloses:
the filtered data sequence ([0045]
S
i
g
n
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
/
M
a
x
S
i
g
n
a
l
L
e
v
e
l
, [0053], [0072]) has a non-uniform gain applied thereto ([0045-0046], [0068] G).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 31-36, 38-44 are rejected. However, the claims would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record does not teach or suggest a combination of the entire claim limitations of claims 31, 34, and 38 in combination with the dependent claim limitations.
The closest prior art of record is the following: Trejo, Ericsson, US 20080175457 A1 Watson (hereinafter “Watson”), and US 20090129695 A1 Aldrich et al. (hereinafter “Aldrich”)
Claim 31 recites the limitation “comparing the signal-to-noise ratio to a minimum target signal-to-noise ratio, and dynamically calculating the time-constant based on a result of the comparison of the signal- to-noise ratio and the minimum target signal-to-noise ratio.” Trejo in view of Ericsson appear to be silent to disclosing the comparing functionality that is further used to calculate the time-constant. Watson generally discloses comparison techniques related to smoothing images where SNR values are used as thresholds ([0033]). However, this comparison and the technique derived from the comparison is unlike those claimed. Claims 32-33 inherit this analysis by reasons of dependence.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “dynamically calculating a further time-constant for a further noise attenuation filter based on a trend of the signal-to-noise ratio over time, and applying the further noise attenuation filter to smooth the time-constant over time.” Trejo in view of Ericsson appear to be silent to disclosing a further time-constant for a further noise attenuation filter based on a trend of the signal-to-noise ratio over time, and applying the further noise attenuation filter to smooth the time-constant over time. This claim limitation introduces an additional time-constant, an additional noise attenuation filter, and smoothing that is not explicitly disclosed by Trejo in view of Ericsson. Watson generally discloses smoothing images corresponding to SNR values ([Abstract]), however, appears to be silent to disclosing an additional time-constant and noise attenuation filter. Claims 35-36 inherit this analysis by reasons of dependence.
Claim 38 recites the limitation “determining an adaptation level from the time-constant over time, and determining the input gain using the adaptation level, wherein a first input gain is associated with first adaptation levels and a second, smaller input gain is associated with second, higher adaptation levels.” Trejo in view of Ericsson appear to be silent to disclosing determining an adaptation level from the time-constant over time, and determining the input gain using the adaptation level, wherein a first input gain is associated with first adaptation levels and a second, smaller input gain is associated with second, higher adaptation levels. Aldrich generally discloses noise adaption thresholds for RGB channels ([0045], [0078]) that are adjusted based on the associated gain ([0080]). However, the adaption level does not appear to be determined from the time-constant over time ([0076]). Claims 39-44 inherit this analysis by reasons of dependence.
In essence, it is the particular mathematics recited in claims 31, 34, and 38 that distinguish among the prior art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARKUS A VILLANUEVA whose telephone number is (703)756-1603. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, James Trujillo can be reached at (571) 272-3677. 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.
/MARKUS ANTHONY VILLANUEVA/Examiner, Art Unit 2151
/James Trujillo/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2151
Prosecution Insights