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 filed 10/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not completely persuasive. With regards to the “Claim Interpretation”, applicant’s remarks are acknowledged. With regards to the “Rejection Under 101”, applicants amendments have overcome the rejection. Accordingly, the rejection is withdrawn. With regards to the “Rejection Under 112 (a)”, applicants remarks are acknowledged and the rejection is withdrawn. Written description is satisfied from the noted specification paragraphs 0051 and 0063. With regards to the ”Rejection Under 103”, applicants remarks are considered, however, are not found convincing. Applicant argues the prior art of record does not teach two different contrast enhancement techniques being used and the combination is not proper. Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to the two different contrast enhancement techniques being used and the modules being different, though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment. Examiner recommends the recitation of the modules being explicitly different. Applicant further argues the substantial redesign of the system in order to combine the prior art documents. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The further acquisition of data, focal point array, provides a superior imaging to perform better than visible light and the analysis being done based upon the acquired data. Herein, accordingly, this action is made final.
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:
“a first contrast enhancement module configured to … perform contrast enhancement” introduced in claims 1, 13, and 20.
“a second contrast enhancement module configured to … perform contrast enhancement” introduced in claims 1, 13, and 20.
“at least one statistics module, the statistics module being configured to … set appropriate configuration parameters” introduced in claim 1.
“a selection module configured to combine the output” introduced in claim 1.
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 § 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) 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St Romain II et al (US 2015/0287174 A1), in view of Högasten (US 2017/0078590).
Regarding claim 1, St Romain II teaches a system for image enhancement, the system comprising: an image pipeline, the image pipeline comprising:
a (St Romain II > [0011]: a video camera captures a series of image frames);
a first contrast enhancement module configured to receive image data from the (St Romain II > [0030] and [0032]: a prior improvement (i.e., contrast enhancement; see [0032]) is performed in a region of an image that has remained unchanged from a previous image frame (i.e., a first contrast-enhanced area); the prior improvement’s calculated histograms and transformation functions for contrast enhancement were previously determined and applied to unchanged region of an image);
a second contrast enhancement module configured to receive image data from the (St Romain II > [0030] and [0032]: a new improvement (i.e., contrast enhancement; see [0032]) is performed in a region of an image that has changed from a previous image frame (i.e., a second contrast-enhanced area); the new improvement’s calculated histograms and transformation functions for contrast enhancement are determined specifically for the changed region of an image);
at least one statistics module, the statistics module being configured to receive at least image data corresponding to a first region of interest and to use this data to set appropriate configuration parameters for use by the first contrast enhancement module in performing contrast enhancement using the first contrast enhancement technique and/or to receive image data corresponding to a second region of interest and to use this data to set appropriate configuration parameters for use by the second contrast enhancement module in performing contrast enhancement using the second contrast enhancement technique (St Romain II > [0031-0032]: new contrast enhancement histograms and transformation functions (i.e., configuration parameters) are calculated for the changed region in an image, and prior histograms and transformation functions were previously calculated for unchanged regions and applied to unchanged regions; See [0028], for example, for a prior improvement being calculated to be used for unchanged regions); and
a selection module configured to combine the output of the first contrast enhancement module and second contrast enhancement module, creating a unitary image (St Romain II > [0030] and [0032]: contrast enhancement is performed for both unchanged regions and changed regions for each image frame, thus resulting in an image with both contrast enhancement techniques combined).
However, St Romain II does not specifically teach where Högasten teaches wherein the image data is gathered from a focal point array (Högasten > [0250]: in a contrast enhancement scenario, input image frames are provided by a focal point array, a type of infrared detector).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify St Romain II using Högasten’s teachings by incorporating using a focal point array to gather the image data of St Romain II, in order to extend the capability of contrast enhancement to nighttime or other low-light conditions, where infrared imaging performs better than visible-light imaging (see Högasten > [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first contrast-enhanced area comprises the second contrast-enhanced area (St Romain II > [0028]: an entire image is used to calculate an initial improvement used for future unchanged areas (i.e., first contrast-enhanced area); [0029-0030]: changed areas (i.e., second contras-enhanced area) are areas that change from the initial entire image, thus are comprised in the initial image).
Regarding claim 3, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 2, wherein contrast-enhanced image data generated by the second contrast enhancement module is substituted for data generated by the first contrast enhancement module where that contrast-enhanced image data corresponds to the second contrast-enhanced area (St Romain II > [0034-0035]: already contrast-enhanced pixels are used to replace pixels in unchanged areas of an image).
Regarding claim 4, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first contrast-enhanced area corresponds to the entire image (St Romain II > [0028]: an initial improvement (i.e., contrast enhancement) is determined from an entire image; [0030]: the initial improvement becomes a prior improvement which is applied to unchanged regions).
Regarding claim 5, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the second contrast-enhanced area corresponds to a predetermined portion of the entire image (St Romain II > [0018]: in some implementations, each region is in a predetermined area of a fixed size).
Regarding claim 6, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the image pipeline is a long-wavelength infrared image pipeline (Högasten > [0107]: infrared sensors can capture images from long wave infrared wave bands).
Regarding claim 8, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first region of interest or second region of interest is configured to be set by a user (Högasten > [0435] and [0438]: a user can determine imaging parameters that determine the image perspectives to be used in a combined contrast-enhanced image).
Regarding claim 9, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first region of interest or second region of interest is automatically selected (St Romain II > [0020]: a changed region in an image (i.e., second region of interest) is automatically determined based on if a region differs more than a threshold number of pixels between two image frames).
Regarding claim 10, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the statistics module is configured to read statistics and to write contrast enhancement configuration parameters to the first contrast enhancement module and/or second contrast enhancement module during an inter-frame gap time (St Romain II > [0017]: reducing computational demand by determining new improvements only for changed regions in an image allows the new improvement (i.e., enhancement configure parameters to the second contrast enhancement module) to be determined in a time between consecutive frames).
Regarding claim 11, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first contrast enhancement module and second contrast enhancement module are configured to apply different types of contrast enhancement (St Romain II > [0031-0032]: contrast enhancement is applied to both changed and unchanged regions; Högasten > [0479]: different image contrast enhancements are performed for two different regions of an image, such as histogram equalization and applying a high pass filter.).
Regarding claim 12, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first contrast enhancement module and second contrast enhancement module are configured to apply the same type of contrast enhancement using different configuration parameters (St Romain II > [0031-0032]: a contrast limited adaptive histogram equalization (“CLAHE”) is used for both changed and unchanged regions, but the calculated histograms and transformation functions are determined for each region separately, e.g., a “new transformation” and “prior transformation”).
Regarding claim(s) 13-16 and 18-20, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, and 10-12 is incorporated herein. Further, the system of claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, and 10-12 corresponds to the method of claim(s) 13-16 and 18-19, as well as the computer program product of claim(s) 20 (see St Romain II > [0012]: processor executes instructions stored in a memory), and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, in view of Spitzer et al (US 2012/0257808 A1).
Regarding claim 7, St Romain II, as modified by Högasten, further teaches the system of claim 1, (St Romain II > [0031-0032]: contrast enhancement is applied to changed regions in an image; Högasten > [0479]: histogram equalization and linear scaling can be applied to image portions for adjusting dynamic range).
However, neither St Romain II nor Högasten specifically teach where Spitzer teaches wherein the first contrast enhancement module is configured to perform plateau equalization type contrast enhancement (St Romain II > [0031-0032]: contrast enhancement is applied to unchanged regions in an image; Spitzer > [0068-0069]: for contrast enhancement on an entire image, a plateau is used on a pixel intensity mapping function).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify St Romain II (as modified by Högasten) using Spitzer’s teachings by incorporating plateau equalization type contrast enhancement for the first contrast enhancement module of St Romain II (as modified by Högasten), in order to enhance an image by ensuring that intensity values in an image remain above a threshold.
Regarding claim(s) 17, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim(s) 7 is incorporated herein. Further, the system of claim(s) 7 corresponds to the method of claim(s) 17, and performs the steps disclosed herein.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Amandeep Saini whose telephone number is (571)272-3382. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8AM-4PM).
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.
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.
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662