DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Amendments and response received 02/10/2026 have been entered. Claims 1, 3-9 and 11-17 are currently pending in this application. Claims 1, 9 and 17 have been amended and claims 2 and 10 have been canceled. Amendments and response are addressed hereinbelow.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling. The disclosure does not enable one of ordinary skill in the art to practice the invention without the description of the “retina cells corresponding to the claimed extraction of at least one sample”, which are critical or essential to the practice of the invention but not included in the claim(s). See In re Mayhew, 527 F.2d 1229, 188 USPQ 356 (CCPA 1976). The claims set forth performing sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed. The claim subsequently sets forth that “the number of samples extracted through the first sampling is less than the number of samples extracted through the second sampling”. However, the second sampling simply calls for “at least one sample”. There is no description in the claim of what a “sample” entails. Therefore, in the case that at least one sample is extracted in the second processing, the first processing could not extract “at least one sample” since the first processing requires the number of samples to be less than the number of samples extracted through the second sampling.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite performing first image processing on an acquired image by performing a first sampling and detecting colors of the sample, performing second image processing on the image by performing second sampling and reducing colors of the sample without significantly more. The abstract idea further sets forth performing processing imitating first and second retina cells of a vertebrate. The processing appears to be nothing more than a human analyzing an image by looking at the image, selecting a portion of the image, and enabling the reduction of colors of the selected portion of the image utilizing a mental process with pen and paper or a mathematical manipulation. The color reduction does not appear to be a part of a larger, concrete process. The processing “imitating first and second retina cells of a vertebrate” in itself suggests that the processing may be performed by the human eye. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technical environment. Furthermore, the processes performed are not enough to qualify as “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself as the steps may be performed in the human mind and/or output with pen and paper.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite a memory storing instructions and a processor to execute the processing. Generic computer components recited as performing generic functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified abstract idea. There is no indication that the elements improve the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology when merely detecting colors and reducing colors in a sample.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venkat V. Easwar et al (US 6825876 B1) in view of Yongjie Li et al (CN 106127823 B) and Payman Aflaki Beni et al (WO 2018220260 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Easwar et al discloses an image processing apparatus (Col. 5 lines 13-15) comprising:
at least one memory storing instructions, and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions (Col. 17 lines 26-38) to:
acquire an image (Col. 5 lines 53-55);
perform first image processing on the acquired image, and wherein the first image processing includes performing first sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and detecting colors of the at least one extracted sample (Col. 20 lines 13-24; Col. 28 lines 49-55).
Easwar et al fails to explicitly disclose performing second image processing different from the first image processing on the acquired image, wherein the second image processing includes performing second sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and reducing the colors of the at least one extracted sample to convert the at least one extracted sample into monochrome or grayscale data.
Li et al teaches performing second image processing different from the first image processing on the acquired image, wherein the second image processing includes performing second sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image (Li et al lines 151-155 acquiring rod-like data from image; lines 71-83), and reducing the colors of the at least one extracted sample to convert the at least one extracted sample into monochrome or grayscale data (Li et al lines 190-197).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image processing apparatus as disclosed by Easwar et al comprising performing first image processing including first sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and detecting colors of the at least one extracted sample to utilize the teachings of Li et al which teaches performing second image processing different from the first image processing on the acquired image, wherein the second image processing includes performing second sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and reducing the colors of the at least one extracted sample to convert the at least one extracted sample into monochrome or grayscale data to reduce the amount of the image data with the result being free of color cast and artifacts.
Easwar et al fails to explicitly disclose the number of samples extracted through the first sampling is less than the number of samples extracted through the second sampling.
Beni et al, in the same field of endeavor of acquiring a portion of an image, extracting color information, and processing the extracted areas differently (Abstract), teaches the number of samples extracted through the first sampling is less than the number of samples extracted through the second sampling (¶ [79] chroma array size down-sampled compared to luma array size which reads on number of samples of first sampling being less than number of samples from second sampling; ¶ [49]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image processing apparatus as disclosed by Easwar et al comprising performing first image processing including first sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and detecting colors of the at least one extracted sample to utilize the teachings of Beni et al which teaches the number of samples extracted through the first sampling is less than the number of samples extracted through the second sampling to decrease the amount of data during transmission to meet broadcasting infrastructure limitations and provide a faster, more efficient image data transmission process.
Regarding claim 3, Easwar et al discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1), wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to:
perform first image processing imitating processing performed by first retina cells among retina cells of a vertebrate (see rejection of claim 1 simulating cones of a human eye), and performs second image processing imitating processing performed by second retina cells among the retina cells of the vertebrate (see rejection of claim 1 simulating rods of a human eye).
Regarding claim 4, Easwar et al discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 3 (see rejection of claim 3), wherein the first retina cells are cone cells and the second retina cells are rod cells (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Easwar discloses the image processing apparatus according to Claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1).
Easwar fails to explicitly disclose a combining unit configured to combine image data processed by the first image processing unit with image data processed by the second image processing unit.
Li et al teaches a combining unit configured to combine image data processed by the first image processing unit with image data processed by the second image processing unit (lines 63-69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed for the image processing apparatus as disclosed by Easwar et al comprising performing first image processing including first sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and detecting colors of the at least one extracted sample to utilize the teachings of Li et al which teaches a combining unit configured to combine image data processed by the first image processing unit with image data processed by the second image processing unit to provide a final compressed image while maintaining the dynamics of the original details in both bright and dark areas.
Regarding claim 9, Easwar et al discloses an image processing method (see rejection of claim 1) comprising:
a step of acquiring an image (see rejection of claim 1);
a step of performing first image processing on the acquired image, and including performing first sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and detecting colors of the at least one extracted sample (see rejection of claim 1); and
a step of performing second image processing different from the first image processing on the acquired image, and including performing second sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image (see rejection of claim 1), and
reducing the colors of the at least one extracted sample to convert the at least one extracted sample into monochrome or grayscale data (see rejection of claim 1), and
wherein the number of samples extracted by the first sampling is less than the number of samples extracted by the second sampling (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, Easwar et al disclose the image processing method according to Claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9), wherein
in the step of performing the first image processing, the first image processing imitating processing performed by first retina cells among retina cells of a vertebrate is performed (see rejection of claim 3), and
in the step of performing the second image processing, the second image processing imitating processing performed by second retina cells among the retina cells of the vertebrate is performed (see rejection of claim 3).
Regarding claim 12, Easwar et al discloses the image processing method according to Claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11), wherein the first retina cells are cone cells and the second retina cells are rod cells (see rejection of claim 4).
Regarding claim 16, Easwar et al discloses the image processing method according to Claim 9 (see rejection of claim 9), further comprising a step of combining image data processed in the first image processing with image data processed in the second image processing (see rejection of claim 8).
Regarding claim 17, Easwar et al discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an image processing program for causing a computer to perform operations (Col. 17 lines 25-37) including:
a process for acquiring an image (see rejection of claim 1);
a process for performing first image processing on the acquired image (see rejection of claim 1), and
including performing first sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and detecting colors of the at least one extracted sample (see rejection of claim 1); and
a process for performing second image processing different from the first image processing on the acquired image, and including performing second sampling for extracting at least one sample to be processed from the acquired image, and reducing the colors of the at least one extracted sample to convert the at least one extracted sample into monochrome or grayscale data (see rejection of claim 1), and
wherein the number of samples extracted by the first sampling is less than the number of samples extracted by the second sampling (see rejection of claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or remarks have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 13-15 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMARES Q WASHINGTON whose telephone number is (571) 270-1585. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:30am-4:30pm.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/JAMARES Q WASHINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
March 10, 2026