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 . This action is made FINAL.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of the application’s status as a continuation of JP2020-193844
Response to Arguments
Claims 1, 3, and 5 are no longer being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f)
With regards to the previous 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant’s amendments overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Therefore, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1)
Claim Status
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Claims 1, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1) and in further view of Murase (US 20200005437 A1).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1) and in further view of Nakamura (US 20180182073 A1).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1) and in further view of Suzuki (US 20180033154 A1).
Claim 4 would be allowable if incorporated into its respective independent claim, and rewritten to overcome the outstanding 35 USC 112(b).rejection.
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 2-4 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2, 3, and 4 recites the limitation "high-pass filter unit" and “low-pass filter unit”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A previous recitation for “high-pass filter unit” and “low-pass filter unit” cannot be found in claim 1.
One suggestion for overcoming this rejection would be to amend claims 2, 3, and 4 replacing mentions of “high-pass filter unit” and “low-pass filter unit” with “high-pass filter” and “low-pass filter” respectively.
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, 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Murahashi discloses An image processing device comprising: (Murahashi: ¶1 “The present invention relates to an image processing device”)
a processor configured to (Murahashi: ¶64 “an image processing unit 20”)
perform high-pass filtering processing on an image containing a noise having directionality in a first direction with a high-pass filter in the first direction; (Murahashi:¶190 “a high-pass filter unit configured to perform filtering processing on an image containing a noise having directionality in a first direction with a high-pass filter in the first direction;”)
perform low-pass filtering processing on the image in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction with a low-pass filter; and (Murahashi:¶189 “The vertical low-pass filter 150_2 extracts a vertical low frequency component of the scale-converted image data X”)
add an image processed by the high-pass filter and an image processed by the low-pass unit. (Murahashi: Fig. 18 and ¶193 “the adder 24 adds the scale-converted image data X”) to produce a noise removed image, (Murahashi: ¶19 “the image processing device may further include a noise reducing unit that reduces noise of the image signal”)
Murahashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the high-pass filter is applied only once in the first direction, and the low-pass filter is applied only once in the second direction.
In related art, Tsuchiya discloses wherein the high-pass filter is applied only once in the first direction, and the low-pass filter is applied only once in the second direction. (Tsuchiya: ¶45 “The first image data Pf(x,y) may be acquired by controlling the filter circuit 12 to execute high-pass filtering in the vertical direction and low-pass filtering in the horizontal direction on the original image data f(x,y).” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate performing high-pass filtering in a vertical direction and low-pass filtering in a horizontal direction disclosed by Tsuchiya into the method of passing an image through a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, and an adder in order to reduce noise disclosed by Murahashi to decrease levels of noise in the pixels of an image.
Regarding claim 7, Murahashi discloses an image processing method comprising: (Murahashi: ¶1 “an image processing method.”)
executing a step of calculating an image filtered individually with a high-pass filter in a first direction for each image containing a noise having directionality in the first direction; (Murahashi: ¶190 “a high-pass filter unit configured to perform filtering processing on an image containing a noise having directionality in a first direction with a high-pass filter in the first direction;”)
executing a step of calculating an image filtered with a low-pass filter in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction; and (Murahashi: ¶189 “The vertical low-pass filter 150_2 extracts a vertical low frequency component of the scale-converted image data X”)
executing a step of adding an image filtered with the high-pass filter and an image filtered with the low-pass filter. (Murahashi: Fig. 18 and ¶193 “the adder 24 adds the scale-converted image data X”)
Murahashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the high-pass filter is applied only once in the first direction, and the low-pass filter is applied only once in the second direction.
In related art, Tsuchiya discloses wherein the high-pass filter is applied only once in the first direction, and the low-pass filter is applied only once in the second direction. (Tsuchiya: ¶45 “The first image data Pf(x,y) may be acquired by controlling the filter circuit 12 to execute high-pass filtering in the vertical direction and low-pass filtering in the horizontal direction on the original image data f(x,y).” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate performing high-pass filtering in a vertical direction and low-pass filtering in a horizontal direction disclosed by Tsuchiya into the method of passing an image through a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, and an adder in order to reduce noise disclosed by Murahashi to decrease levels of noise in the pixels of an image.
Regarding claim 8, Murahashi, as modified by Tsuchiya discloses wherein the step of calculating an image filtered with the high-pass filter in the first direction and the step of calculating an image filtered with the low-pass filter in the second direction for an image containing a noise having directionality in the first direction are executed in either order. (Murahashi: Fig. 18 and ¶183-190 discloses calculating the step of calculating a filtered image in the first direction with a high-pass filter and the step of calculating a filtered image in the second direction with a low-pass filter can occur in either order)
Regarding claim 9, Murahashi discloses wherein A nonvolatile computer-readable medium (Murahashi: ¶309 “"computer readable recording medium" refers … a ROM, a writable nonvolatile memory”) storing an image processing program for causing a computer to execute image processing operations comprising: (Murahashi: ¶22 “An image processing program according to the third aspect of the present invention causes a computer to execute”)
a procedure of performing filtering processing on an image containing a noise having directionality in a first direction with a high-pass filter in the first direction, (Murahashi: ¶190 “a high-pass filter unit configured to perform filtering processing on an image containing a noise having directionality in a first direction with a high-pass filter in the first direction;”)
a procedure of performing filtering processing on the image in a second direction perpendicular to the first direction with a low-pass filter, and (Murahashi: ¶189 “The vertical low-pass filter 150_2 extracts a vertical low frequency component of the scale-converted image data X”)
a procedure of adding an image filtered with the high-pass filter and an image filtered with the low-pass filter. (Murahashi: Fig. 18 and ¶193 “the adder 24 adds the scale-converted image data X”)
Murahashi fails to specifically disclose wherein the high-pass filter is applied only once in the first direction, and the low-pass filter is applied only once in the second direction.
In related art, Tsuchiya discloses wherein the high-pass filter is applied only once in the first direction, and the low-pass filter is applied only once in the second direction. (Tsuchiya: ¶45 “The first image data Pf(x,y) may be acquired by controlling the filter circuit 12 to execute high-pass filtering in the vertical direction and low-pass filtering in the horizontal direction on the original image data f(x,y).” )
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate performing high-pass filtering in a vertical direction and low-pass filtering in a horizontal direction disclosed by Tsuchiya into the method of passing an image through a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, and an adder in order to reduce noise disclosed by Murahashi to decrease levels of noise in the pixels of an image.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1) and in further view of Murase (US 20200005437 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Murahashi, as modified by Tsuchiya, discloses the invention except for wherein a sum of transmittance at each spatial frequency of the high-pass filter unit and transmittance at each spatial frequency of the low-pass filter unit is 1.
In related art Murase discloses a sum of transmittance at each spatial frequency of the high-pass filter unit and transmittance at each spatial frequency of the low-pass filter unit is 1 (Murase: ¶66 “the high-pass filter 12 and the low-pass filter 13 employ relative characteristic compensation circuit configurations according to which “transmittance of high-pass filter+transmittance of low-pass filter=1” is satisfied for any spatial frequency ”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the sum of transmittance between the high-pass filter and low-pass filter equaling 1 at any spatial frequency disclosed by Murase into the method of passing an image through a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, and an adder in order to reduce noise disclosed by Murahashi to ensure light can still be transmitted after the high-pass and low-pass filtering has taken place.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1) and in further view of Nakamura (US 20180182073 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Murahashi, as modified by Tsuchiya, teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the processor is further configured to change a cut off period in the low-pass filter unit and the high-pass filter unit according to a period of a noise in the image having directionality in the first direction.
In related art, Nakamura discloses wherein a filter setting unit configured to change a cut off period in the low-pass filter unit and the high-pass filter unit according to a period of a noise in the image having directionality in the first direction. (Nakamura: ¶28 discloses a vertical low-pass filter and horizonal high-pass filter for removing noise and having varying cutoffs)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the incorporating varying cutoffs based on noise within an image disclosed by Nakamura into the method of passing an image through a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, and an adder in order to reduce noise disclosed by Murahashi to determine when it is necessary to attenuate the signals based on the noise present within the images.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murahashi (US 20140037226 A1) in view of Tsuchiya (US 20090232380 A1) and in further view of Suzuki (US 20180033154 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Murahashi, as modified by Tsuchiya, discloses wherein the noise-removed image. (Murahashi: ¶150 discloses a noise removed image)
Murahashi, as modified by Tsuchiya, does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured to predict a defect density distribution in the image based on pixel information
In related art, Suzuki discloses defect density prediction unit configured to predict a defect density distribution in an image based on pixel information (Suzuki: ¶6 “estimating the deterioration degree of each local region of the image data;”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the estimating the degree of deterioration across regions within an image disclosed by Suzuki into the method of passing an image through a high-pass filter, low-pass filter, and an adder in order to reduce noise disclosed by Murahashi to identify regions within the image that can be corrected in order to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 6, Murahashi, as modified by Tsuchiya, teaches the claimed invention except for wherein the pixel information includes any one of a height, an average value, a median value, and a standard deviation of a luminance histogram in any region. (Suzuki: ¶6 “calculating at least a luminance of a high luminance portion in a luminance distribution of the image data from statistical information of each local region of the image data;” Fig. 4 discloses generating a luminance histogram)
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 MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1264. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at 4089187630. 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.
/MICHAEL KIM MAIDEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665