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, see Remarks page 8, filed on 02/05/2026, with respect to the objection of claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-12, filed on 02/05/2026, with respect to the rejections of amended claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103, specifically in regards to the previously cited prior art failing to disclose the amended verification process limitations, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of amended claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the amended limitation(s): “perform a verification process for validating an appropriateness of the conversion of the filtered first image into the second image by comparing a cumulative distribution for each brightness value of the second image with an average cumulative distribution for each brightness value of the first image and the second image”.
However, regarding a second verification process, paragraphs 0076 and 0078 of the Specification recite “In the graph, the brightness distributions of the daytime images and the existing nighttime images are classified into two, and the average value is reflected by identifying the number of accumulated pixels for each channel value of the daytime image and the existing nighttime image…When the V channel values are 50, 100, and 150, the average of the number of accumulated pixels of the daytime image and the existing nighttime image is
α
,
β
,
a
n
d
γ
, and the controller 200 compares the number of pixels accumulated when the V channel values of the converted nighttime image are 50, 100, and 150 with
α
,
β
,
a
n
d
γ
”. Wherein, the Specification discloses that for the verification process an accumulated number of pixels associated with V channel values 50, 100, and 150 in the converted nighttime image are compared to an average cumulative distribution of pixels associated with V channel values 50, 100, and 150 for a daytime and an existing nighttime image, respectfully. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation for the verification process is that the existing nighttime image is different from the converted nighttime image, and that rather than comparing the cumulative distributions for each brightness value in the images, the brightness values compared are 50, 100, and 150.
Therefore, the limitations directed to “comparing a cumulative distribution for each brightness value of the second image with an average cumulative distribution for each brightness value of the first image and the second image” constitute new matter.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5-7, it/they is/are rejected under 112(a) for inheriting and failing to cure the deficiencies of the parent claim 1.
As per claim(s) 8-10 and 12-14, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 are analogous, respectively.
As per claim(s) 15-17 and 19-20, arguments made in rejecting claim(s) 1-3 and 5-7 are analogous, respectively.
With respect to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20, in addition to other limitations in the claims, the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant's invention as claimed, in particular the independent claim 1, and similarity for independent claims 8, and 15, limitations: “perform a verification process for validating an appropriateness of the conversion of the filtered first image into the second image by comparing a cumulative distribution for each brightness value of the second image with an average cumulative distribution for each brightness value of the first image and the second image”.
Thus, no prior art rejection for claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, and 19-20 has been made.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lentini et al. (US 20230010654 A1) discloses
a method for processing medical images which includes detecting blur in an image (Lentini et al.: 0075: “…the system may keep track of a “total blur score.” The total blur score may be a combined blur score of all tiles utilized in the composite electronic medical image.”; Wherein the blur is a texture) utilizing fast Fourier transform and a high pass filter (Lentini et al.: 0068: “the system may utilize Fast Fourier Transform (“FFT”) to determine a blur score…Next, the system may apply a high pass filter or a band pass filter to determine edges which corresponding with high frequencies. Next, a blur score may be computed utilizing the edges detected, wherein tiles with more edges may have a higher blur score and tiles with less edges may have a lower blur score.”). Wherein the image may be discarded based on the blur exceeding a threshold value (Lentini et al.: 0075: “If the total blur score is above a first threshold value, then the system may order a rescan of the medical image.”; Wherein the image is filtered out if the blur score exceeds a threshold value).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-5821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10am-7pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/ANTHONY J RODRIGUEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights