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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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:
“pixel block calculating unit” in claim 3;
“image sampling unit” in claim 3;
“position calculating unit” in claim 4;
“pixel calculating unit” in claim 4;
“weight determining unit” in claim 5;
“pixel block determining unit” in claim 5;
“weighting unit” in claim 5;
“index determining unit” in claim 6; and
“weight obtaining unit” in claim 6;
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.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to products that do not have a physical or tangible form, e.g., a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations. The examiner suggests amending the claims such that the claimed program is stored in a non-transitory computer readable medium.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by us patent application publication no. 2022/0092731 to Lee et al. (hereinafter Lee).
For claims 1, 8 and 10, Lee as applied discloses a device for processing an image, the device comprising:
a data processing unit configured
to obtain an original image (see, e.g., pars. 52-59, which teach receiving an array of values of two dimensions, e.g., two dimensional image data),
to downsample the original image at a first sub-rate to obtain a transitional image (see, e.g., pars. 60-68, 74-75 and 80 and FIGS. 1-8 and 11, which teach downsampling the received image data using a first group of fixed factor downscalers in one dimension and sending results to the second group of downscalers; the examiner interprets the results as the claimed transitional image), and
to downsample the transitional image at a second sub-rate to obtain a target image (see, e.g., pars. 60-68, 74-75 and 81 and FIGS. 1-8 and 11, which teach downsampling the results in another dimension using the second group of fixed factor downscalers and providing an output; the examiner interprets the output as the claimed target image);
wherein the first sub-rate and the second sub-rate are obtained by dividing a downsampling rate of the original image (see, e.g., pars. 62-66, which teach an instance where the downsampling factor of each fixed factor downscalers, e.g., 2, may be calculated by dividing the overall downsampling factor, e.g., 8 and 16), and a product of the first sub-rate and the second sub-rate is equal to the downsampling rate (see, e.g., pars. 60-66, which teach an instance where the overall downsampling factor, e.g., 8 and 16, would equal to the product of the fixed factor downsampling factor of each downscalers, e.g., 2).
For claims 2 and 9, Lee as applied discloses that the relationship between the first sub-rate and the second sub-rate is at least one of the following：
neither a reciprocal of the first sub-rate nor a reciprocal of the second sub-rate is an integer (see, e.g., par. 62, which teach, for example, that each of the reciprocals of the downsampling factors is a fraction);
the first sub-rate is greater than the second sub-rate.
For claim 3, Lee as applied discloses that the data processing unit comprises:
a pixel block calculating unit configured to determine the number of horizontal pixels or vertical pixels of a first pixel block configured to be downsampled in the original image according to the first sub-rate, the number of the horizontal pixels or vertical the pixels of the first pixel block being greater than or equal to the reciprocal of the first sub-rate (see, e.g., pars. 68-73, which teach determining the required size of the line stores according to the fixed factor, wherein the size being greater than or equal than the fixed factor; the examiner interprets determining the size of the line stores includes teaching as the number of horizonal/vertical pixels, i.e., the first dimension, because the size of line stores is determined by dividing the number of the pixels with the fixed factor); and
an image sampling unit configured to downsample the original image on a basis of the first sub-rate and the number of the horizontal pixels or the vertical pixels of the first pixel block to obtain the transitional image (see, e.g., pars. 68-73, which teach determining the required size of the line stores according to the fixed factor, wherein the size being greater than or equal than the fixed factor).
For claim 4, Lee as applied discloses that the image sampling unit comprises:
a position calculating unit configured to determine, according to a position of each transitional pixel in the transitional image, the first sub-rate and the number of the horizontal pixels or the vertical pixels of the first pixel block, a position of an original pixel block, in the original image, corresponding to the each transitional pixel configured to be downsampled in the original image (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIG. 7, which teach determining the original positions of the pixels for decimation based on the number of the pixels, which correspond to the original positions, the decimation/fixed factor and the order of the transitional positions); and
a pixel calculating unit configured to calculate a pixel value of the each transitional pixel in the transitional image on a basis of the position of the original pixel block, in the original image, corresponding to the each transitional pixel and the number of the horizontal pixels or the vertical pixels of the first pixel block, to obtain the transitional image (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIGS. 7A-C, which teach determining the values of the transitional images by calculating a normalized sum of the original pixel values and decimating based on the decimation/fixed factor).
For claim 5, Lee as applied discloses that the image sampling unit comprises:
a weight determining unit configured to determine a weight corresponding to each pixel in the first pixel block (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIGS. 7A-C, which teach determining the filter coefficients);
a pixel block determining unit configured to determine each original pixel block in the original image according to the position of the original pixel block, in the transitional image, corresponding to the each transitional pixel in the original image and the number of the horizontal pixels or the vertical pixels of the first pixel block (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIGS. 7A-C, which teach determining the order of the original pixel values, in which the filter coefficients are multiplied/weighted); and
a weighting unit configured to correspondingly multiply a pixel value of each pixel in each original pixel block by the weight corresponding to the each pixel in the first pixel block, and to add a corresponding multiplied result to obtain a pixel value of the each transitional pixel in the transitional image, to obtain the transitional image (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIGS. 7A-C, which teach determining the values of the transitional images by calculating a normalized sum of the original pixel values weighted by the respective filter coefficients, and decimating based on the decimation/fixed factor).
For claim 7, Lee as applied discloses that the position of the each transitional pixel in the transitional image comprises an abscissa and an ordinate, and the weight corresponding to the each pixel in the first pixel block comprises a horizontal weight and a vertical weight (see, e.g., pars. 91-97 and 109 and FIGS. 8A-E, which teach multiplying the original pixel values with horizontal and vertical weights based on the orders in which the values are in the respective row and column and wherein the values are associated with x and y coordinates); and
the weighting unit is specifically configured to correspondingly multiply the pixel value of the each pixel in each original pixel block by the horizontal weight and the vertical weight corresponding to the each pixel in the first pixel block, and to add corresponding multiplied results to obtain the pixel value of the each transitional pixel in the transitional image (see, e.g., pars. 91-97 and FIGS. 8A-E, which teach multiplying the original pixel values with horizontal and vertical weights and determining a normalized sum of the values).
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of us patent no. 6014682 to Stephen et al. (hereinafter Stephen).
For claim 6, Lee as applied teaches that the weight determining unit comprises:
an index determining unit configured to determine, according to the position of the each transitional pixel in the transitional image, the first sub-rate and a length of a first preset table, an index of the each transitional pixel in a first preset table, wherein the first preset table stores a corresponding relationship between each index and a corresponding weight (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIGS. 7A-C, which teach accessing and matching the filter coefficients to the original pixel values based on the orders of the original pixels and the filter coefficients); and
a weight obtaining unit configured to determine the weight corresponding to the each pixel in the first pixel block from the first preset table according to the index of the each transitional pixel in the first preset table (see, e.g., pars. 88-90 and FIGS. 7A-C, which teach accessing and matching the filter coefficients to the original pixel values based on the orders of the original pixels and the filter coefficients).
Lee as applied, however, does not teach that the coefficients are stored in an indexed table. Stephen in the analogous art teaches storing coefficients of a down-sampling filter in a lookup table, which are indexed based on the dimensions and precision of the values being sampled (see, e.g., lines 2-15 on col. 5 of Stephen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to store the filter coefficients in a table as taught by Stephens because doing so would simplify indices of the table (see lines 16-27 on col. 6 of Stephens)
Additional Citations
The following table lists several references that are relevant to the subject matter claimed and disclosed in this Application. The references are not relied on by the Examiner, but are provided to assist the Applicant in responding to this Office action.
Citation
Relevance
Menachem et al. (2018/0183998)
Describes a technique of reducing power in an imaging sensor, and more particularly, of controlling a sensor to selectively downscale certain portions of the sensor based on classification and segmentation of subject-free areas of an image. For example, an embodiment includes an imaging device having an image sensor having an array of imaging elements, the image sensor configured to generate first image information of a first spatial resolution for first portions of the array of imaging elements, and generate second image information for one or more second portions of the array of imaging elements, the second image information having one or more second spatial resolutions that are downscaled relative to the first spatial resolution, the image sensor further configured to control the downscaling of the one or more second resolutions by received downscaling control information identifying portions of the array of imaging elements.
Lin (2015/0254815)
Describes an image downsampling apparatus and an image downsampling method. For example, the image downsampling apparatus includes a one-directional downsampling circuit, a multi-directional downsampling circuit and an output circuit. The one-directional downsampling performs one-directional downsampling by using an original image signal to obtain and output a first adjusted image signal. The multi-directional downsampling circuit performs multi-directional downsampling by using the original image signal to obtain and output a second adjusted image signal. The output circuit outputs a downsampled image signal according to the first adjusted image signal and the second adjusted image signal.
Shen (2018/0295368)
Describes techniques for a video compression. For example, a method receives an image from a video. The image is split into a first set of first blocks of a first size and then the first blocks are split into a second set of second blocks of a second size. The method tests a first set of down-sampling patterns for the second set of second blocks in a first block in the set of first blocks to determine if a quality of reconstruction of the down-sampled second blocks meets a threshold associated with the respective first set of down sampling patterns. Second blocks satisfying the threshold are down-sampled using the first set of down-sampling patterns. Also, the method tests a second set of down-sampling patterns for the first block using a second set of down-sampling patterns to select one of the second set of down sampling patterns to use to down-sample second blocks that did not satisfy the threshold.
Table 1
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached form 892 and above Table 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WOO RHIM whose telephone number is (571)272-6560. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30 am - 6:00 pm et.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached on 571-272-4637. 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.
WOO CHUL RHIM
Examiner
Art Unit 2776
/Henok Shiferaw/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2676