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 page 8, filed 2/5/2026, with respect to claim objectsion have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 13 has been withdrawn in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 12-17 and 20 and 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to double patenting and claims 1-20 for US11,017504 and 10 and 11 for US 11,707,774 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant merely argues that the amendments overcome the double patenting rejection without specifically pointing out how the amendments overcome the conflicting claims. This is mere allegation and unpersuasive. The examiner notes that claims 10 and 11 were not even amended so this argument is non-responsive to the rejections to these claims.
While not separately argued the examiner notes that the rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-20 is withdrawn for US 11,707,774 based on the amendments.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 6-9, 10-12 and 17-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5, 15 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11017504 in view of Lim et al US 2007/0009175.
Re claim 1 claims 15 of the patent discloses A method comprising: receiving a first frame of pixel data (see claim 12 [from which claim 15 depends] “receiving a first pixel of a first frame” ); determining an estimated pixel noise parameter (see claim 12 “ filtering the first pixel using an estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel” note that a noise parameter is determined ) determining a difference between the signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel ( see claim 12 “ using a difference between a signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel” note that a difference between pixels is determined); obtaining a filtered pixel based at least in part on a comparison of the difference to the estimated pixel noise parameter (see claim 12 “wherein the adaptively noise filtering the first pixel is based on a comparison of a change in the signal levels of the first and second pixels to the estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel” );
the comparison comprising dividing the difference by the estimated pixel noise parameter (see claim 15 “dividing the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by the noise standard deviation to obtain a temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel in standard deviations of noise, the dividing being the comparison”)
and outputting the filtered pixel to an output frame of filtered pixel data (see claim 12 “ and outputting the filtered pixel to an output frame.” Note that if the output frame has filtered pixels it is a frame of filtered pixel data ).
Claim 15 does not expressly an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel
Lim discloses an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel (see paragraph 12 and paragraph 38 note that estimated noise standard deviation is based on the pixel value). Note that the estimation of noise in claim 12 could be replaced with the estimate in Lim. The motivation to combine is Thus, the standard deviation of noise according to this model is a function of the brightness (intensity) values. In general, the standard deviation is typically higher for brighter areas. The dark areas have much smaller noise variance than mid-to-bright areas whereas the bright areas have much larger noise variance than the mid-to-dark areas. (see paragraph 12) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lim and claim 15.
Re claim 6 claim 17 discloses wherein obtaining the filtered pixel comprises: determining, based on the comparison, an amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through a filter; (see claim 16 [from which claims 17 depends] “inputting the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel in standard deviations of noise to a change look-up table; and outputting by the change look-up table an allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to pass through the filter” and obtaining the filtered pixel based on the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter (see claim 17 “ and generating the filtered pixel by adding the allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to a corresponding pixel”).
Re claim 7 claim 17 discloses
wherein determining, based on the comparison, the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter comprises: determining a noise standard deviation corresponding to the signal level of the first pixel; (see claim 14 [from which claim 17 depends]: “inputting a signal level of the first pixel to a signal level to noise look-up table; and outputting by the signal level to noise look-up table a noise standard deviation corresponding to the signal level of the first pixel, the noise standard deviation being the estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel” )
and using the noise standard deviation to determine a percent of the difference between the signal level of the first pixel and at least the signal level of the second pixel that is allowed to pass through the filter. (see claim 16 “inputting the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel in standard deviations of noise to a change look-up table; and outputting by the change look-up table an allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to pass through the filter” also see claim 17 “creating an allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by multiplying the allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel” note that the allowed percentage multiplied by the difference is the allowed percent difference)
Re claim 8 claim 17 of the patent discloses wherein obtaining the filtered pixel based on the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter comprises: adding the percent of the difference and a value of the second pixel to obtain the filtered pixel (see claim 17 “creating an allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by multiplying the allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel; and generating the filtered pixel by adding the allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to a corresponding pixel, the corresponding pixel being a pixel in the second frame, the second frame immediately preceding the first frame in time.” Note that a percent allowed multiplied by the difference is added to the pixel ).
Re claim 9 claim 13 discloses wherein: the second pixel is at a same location in a previous frame captured prior in time to a capture of the first frame as a location of the first pixel in the first frame (see claim 13 “the second pixel being at a same location in the second frame as a location of the first pixel in the first frame the change in the signal levels of the first and second pixels being a temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel.” And claim 12 “the second pixel being in a second frame captured by the image sensor prior in time to the capture of the first frame”).
Re claim 10 claim 5 of the patent( which incorporates claim 1) discloses
A system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture a first frame of pixel data (see claim 1: an image sensor configured to capture a first frame of pixel data); and an imaging pipeline coupled to the image sensor to receive the first frame of pixel data, the imaging pipeline including an adaptive noise filter configured to: (see claim 1 an imaging pipeline coupled to the image sensor to receive the first frame of pixel data, the imaging pipeline including an adaptive noise filter, the adaptive noise filter being configured to: ) filter a first pixel using an estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel and using a difference between a signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel ( see claim 1 : filter a first pixel using an estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel, and using a difference between a signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel,) to obtain a filtered pixel; and output a second frame of pixel data including the filtered pixel; (see claim 1 and output a second frame of pixel data including the filtered first pixel; ) the imaging pipeline including a plurality of stages, each of the plurality of stages following a first stage of the plurality of stages being configured to process an input pixel noise frame and configured to output a stage dependent pixel noise frame. ( see claim 5 the imaging pipeline including a plurality of stages, each of the plurality of stages following a first stage of the plurality of stages being configured to process an input pixel noise frame and configured to output a stage dependent pixel noise frame. )
Claim 5 does not disclose not expressly at least one computer processor
Lim discloses A system comprising a processor (see paragraph and 46 7 and 22). The motivation to combine is to implement the invention with a general purpose processor or a personal computer (see paragraph 46). One or ordinary skill in the art could have easily implemented the pipeline with a computer processor and the results (the invention is implemented by a general purpose processor) would have been predictable. Each combined element merely performs the same function as the do separately that is the function is merely implemented using a general purpose processor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lim and claim 5.
Re claim 11 Claim 5 of the patent discloses a display device coupled to the imaging pipeline to receive an output frame of pixel data output by the imaging pipeline based on the second frame of pixel data, the display device being configured to display the output frame of pixel data. (see claim 1 the imaging pipeline being configured to output an output frame of pixel data based on the second frame of pixel data; and a display device coupled to the imaging pipeline to receive the output frame of pixel data, the display device being configured to display the output frame of pixel data. )
Re claim 12 Claim 15 of the patent discloses
that implements an adaptive noise filter configured to: determine an estimated pixel noise parameter (see claim 12 “ filtering the first pixel using an estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel” note that a noise parameter is determined ) determine a difference between the signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel ( see claim 12 “ using a difference between a signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel” note that a difference between pixels is determined); obtain a filtered pixel based at least in part on a comparison of the difference to the estimated pixel noise parameter (see claim 12 “wherein the adaptively noise filtering the first pixel is based on a comparison of a change in the signal levels of the first and second pixels to the estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel” );
the comparison comprising dividing the difference by the estimated pixel noise parameter (see claim 15 “dividing the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by the noise standard deviation to obtain a temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel in standard deviations of noise, the dividing being the comparison”)
and output the filtered pixel to an output frame of filtered pixel data (see claim 12 “ and outputting the filtered pixel to an output frame.” Note that if the output frame has filtered pixels it is a frame of filtered pixel data ).
Claim 15 does not disclose A system comprising not expressly at least one computer processor an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel.
Lim discloses A system comprising a processor (see paragraph 7 and 22) and an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel (see paragraph 12 and paragraph 38 note that estimated noise standard deviation is based on the pixel value).Note that the estimation of noise in claim 12 could be replaced with the estimate in Lim and the claim could easily be implemented by a processor. The motivation to combine is Thus, the standard deviation of noise according to this model is a function of the brightness (intensity) values. In general, the standard deviation is typically higher for brighter areas. The dark areas have much smaller noise variance than mid-to-bright areas whereas the bright areas have much larger noise variance than the mid-to-dark areas. (see paragraph 12). The motivation to combine is to implement the invention with a general purpose processor or a personal computer (see paragraph 46). One or ordinary skill in the art could have easily implemented the pipeline with a computer processor and the results (the invention is implemented by a general purpose processor) would have been predictable. Each combined element merely performs the same function as the do separately that is the function is merely implemented using a general purpose processor. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lim and claim 15.
Re claim 17 claim 17 of the patent discloses wherein obtaining the filtered pixel comprises: determining, based on the comparison, an amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through a filter; (see claim 16 [from which claims 17 depends] “inputting the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel in standard deviations of noise to a change look-up table; and outputting by the change look-up table an allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to pass through the filter” and obtaining the filtered pixel based on the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter (see claim 17 “ and generating the filtered pixel by adding the allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to a corresponding pixel”).
Re claim 18, claim 17 discloses
wherein determining, based on the comparison, the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter comprises: determining a noise standard deviation corresponding to the signal level of the first pixel; (see claim 14 [from which claim 17 depends]: “inputting a signal level of the first pixel to a signal level to noise look-up table; and outputting by the signal level to noise look-up table a noise standard deviation corresponding to the signal level of the first pixel, the noise standard deviation being the estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel” )
and using the noise standard deviation to determine a percent of the difference between the signal level of the first pixel and at least the signal level of the second pixel that is allowed to pass through the filter. (see claim 16 “inputting the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel in standard deviations of noise to a change look-up table; and outputting by the change look-up table an allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to pass through the filter” also see claim 17 “creating an allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by multiplying the allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel” note that the allowed percentage multiplied by the difference is the allowed percent difference)
Re claim 19 claim 17 of the patent discloses wherein obtaining the filtered pixel based on the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter comprises: adding the percent of the difference and a value of the second pixel to obtain the filtered pixel (see claim 17 “creating an allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by multiplying the allowed percentage of temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel by the temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel; and generating the filtered pixel by adding the allowed temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel to a corresponding pixel, the corresponding pixel being a pixel in the second frame, the second frame immediately preceding the first frame in time.” Note that a percent allowed multiplied by the difference is added to the pixel).
Re claim 20 claim 13 of the patent discloses wherein: the second pixel is at a same location in a previous frame captured prior in time to a capture of the first frame as a location of the first pixel in the first frame (see claim 13 “the second pixel being at a same location in the second frame as a location of the first pixel in the first frame the change in the signal levels of the first and second pixels being a temporal change in the signal level of the first pixel.” And claim 12 “the second pixel being in a second frame captured by the image sensor prior in time to the capture of the first frame”).
Claim 4, 5, 15 and 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11017504 in view of Lim et al US 2007/0009175 in further view of Rakhshanfar US 2017/0084007.
Re claim 4 claim 15 and Lim do not expressly disclose outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame. Rakhshanfar discloses outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). The motivation to combine is to remove the noise remaining after temporal processing (see paragraph 130). One of ordinary skill in the art could have claim 15 and Lim to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with claim 15 and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 5 Claim 15 and Lim do not expressly disclose providing the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter Rakshanfar disclose providing the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). One of ordinary skill in the art could have claim 12 and Lim to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with claim 12 and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 15 claim 15 and Lim do not expressly disclose outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame. Rakhshanfar discloses outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). The motivation to combine is to remove the noise remaining after temporal processing (see paragraph 130). One of ordinary skill in the art could have claim 15 and Lim to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with claim 15 and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 16 Claim 15 and Lim do not expressly disclose providing the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter Rakshanfar disclose sproviding the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). One of ordinary skill in the art could have claim 12 and Lim to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with claim 15 and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claims 10 and 11, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,704,774 in view of Lim et al US 2007/0009175.
Re claim 10 Claim 9 of the patent discloses
A system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture a first frame of pixel data; and a pipeline coupled to the image sensor and configured to: receive the first frame of pixel data , the imaging pipeline including an adaptive noise filter configured to (see claim 9 “A system comprising: an image sensor configured to capture a first frame of pixel data; and an imaging pipeline coupled to the image sensor to receive the first frame of pixel data, the imaging pipeline including an adaptive noise filter configured to”):
filter a first pixel using an estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel and using a difference between a signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel to obtain a filtered pixel; (Re claim 9 “filter a first pixel using an estimated pixel noise level of the first pixel and using a difference between a signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel to obtain a filtered pixel;”)
and output a second frame of pixel data including the filtered pixel (see claim 9 “and output a second frame of pixel data including the filtered pixel”); the imaging pipeline including a plurality of stages, each of the plurality of stages following a first stage of the plurality of stages being configured to process an input pixel noise frame and configured to output a stage dependent pixel noise frame. (see claim 9 “the imaging pipeline including a plurality of stages, each of the plurality of stages following a first stage of the plurality of stages being configured to process an input pixel noise frame and configured to output a stage dependent pixel noise frame.”)
Claim 9 does not disclose not expressly at least one computer processor
Lim discloses A system comprising a processor (see paragraph and 46 7 and 22). The motivation to combine is to implement the invention with a general purpose processor or a personal computer (see paragraph 46). One or ordinary skill in the art could have easily implemented the pipeline with a computer processor and the results (the invention is implemented by a general purpose processor) would have been predictable. Each combined element merely performs the same function as the do separately that is the function is merely implemented using a general purpose processor. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lim and claim 9.
Re claim 11, claim 10 discloses a display device coupled to the imaging pipeline to receive an output frame of pixel data output by the imaging pipeline, the display device being configured to display the output frame of pixel data. (see claim 10 “ a display device coupled to the imaging pipeline to receive an output frame of pixel data output by the imaging pipeline based on the third frame of pixel data, the display device being configured to display the output frame of pixel data..”
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) 1-3,6,9,12-14, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward US 6,061,100 in view of Lim et al US 2007/0009175 in further view of Florent US 6,151,417.
Re claim 1 Ward discloses a method comprising: receiving a first frame of pixel data (see abstract note that processing is performed on received frames); determining an estimated pixel noise parameter ( see column 4 lines 1-10 note that a threshold is determined based on the noise standard deviation ); determining a difference between the signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel (see column 6 lines 10-20 note that a subtracter subtracts from the ); obtaining a filtered pixel based at least in part on a comparison of the difference to the estimated pixel noise parameter( see abstract and figure 1 note that temporal motion detection is used to determine a motion adaptive temporal filter see also column 8 lines 5-15 ); and outputting the filtered pixel to an output frame of filtered pixel data (see column 8 lines 35-40 note that output pixel is determined ) ..
Ward does not expressly an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel
Lim discloses an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel (see paragraph 12 and paragraph 38 note that estimated noise standard deviation is based on the pixel value).Note that the estimation of noise in Ward could be replaced with the estimate in Lim. The motivation to combine is Thus, the standard deviation of noise according to this model is a function of the brightness (intensity) values. In general, the standard deviation is typically higher for brighter areas. The dark areas have much smaller noise variance than mid-to-bright areas whereas the bright areas have much larger noise variance than the mid-to-dark areas. (see paragraph 12). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lim and Ward.
Lim and Ward do not expressly disclose the comparison comprising dividing the difference by the estimated pixel noise parameter. Florent the comparison comprising dividing the difference by the estimated pixel noise parameter (see column 3 line 65-column 4 line 7 note that the difference pixel is normalized by dividing the difference image by standard deviation of the noise). The motivation to combine is “The normalized difference sample D.sub.t (x,y) is applied to the two-dimensional spatial filter 23, referenced F.sub.2D, in order to supply the measure of probability of motion” (see column 4 lines 59-64)One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily the methods of Florent in the motion determinations of Ward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Florent with Ward and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 2 Ward further discloses wherein the method is performed by a first adaptive noise filter of a plurality of adaptive noise filters (see figure 1 note that the motion adaptive temporal filter is followed by the motion adaptive spatial filter, see also column 8 lines 35-40 note that the output of the motion adaptive temporal filter is output to the adaptive spatial filter.).
Re claim 3 Ward further disclose providing the output frame of filtered pixel data to a second adaptive noise filter of the plurality of adaptive noise filters (see figure 1 note that the motion adaptive temporal filter is followed by the motion adaptive spatial filter, see also column 8 lines 35-40 note that the output of the motion adaptive temporal filter is output to the adaptive spatial filter.)
Re claim 6 ward further discloses determining, based on the comparison, an amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through a filter; and obtaining the filtered pixel based on the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter (see column 8 lines 5-15 note that a pixel is only combined with previous pixels if it is still and not moving therefore it the pixel is not still only the pixel level [i.e. the full amount] will pass through the filter).
Re claim 9 Ward discloses wherein: the second pixel is at a same location in a previous frame captured by the image sensor prior in time to the capture of the first frame as a location of the first pixel in the first frame (see ward column 6 lines 10-15 note that the image difference in between a current pixel and a corresponding pixel in the previous frame).
Re claim 12 Ward discloses A system comprising: at least one computer processor that implements an adaptive noise filter configured to (see column 3 lines 15-20 and column 2 lines 35-40 note that the invention is implemented by a processor): receive a first frame of pixel data (see abstract note that processing is performed on received frames); determining an estimated pixel noise parameter ( see column 4 lines 1-10 note that a threshold is determined based on the noise standard deviation ); determine a difference between the signal level of the first pixel and at least a signal level of a second pixel (see column 6 lines 10-20 note that a subtracter subtracts from the ); obtain a filtered pixel based at least in part on a comparison of the difference to the estimated pixel noise parameter( see abstract and figure 1 note that temporal motion detection is used to determine a motion adaptive temporal filter see also column 8 lines 5-15 ); and output the filtered pixel to an output frame of filtered pixel data (see column 8 lines 35-40 note that output pixel is determined ).
Lim discloses an estimated pixel noise level determined based on a signal level of the first pixel (see paragraph 12 and paragraph 38 note that estimated noise standard deviation is based on the pixel value).Note that the estimation of noise in Ward could be replaced with the estimate in Lim. The motivation to combine is Thus, the standard deviation of noise according to this model is a function of the brightness (intensity) values. In general, the standard deviation is typically higher for brighter areas. The dark areas have much smaller noise variance than mid-to-bright areas whereas the bright areas have much larger noise variance than the mid-to-dark areas. (see paragraph 12) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Lim and Ward.
Lim and Ward do not expressly disclose the comparison comprising dividing the difference by the estimated pixel noise parameter. Florent the comparison comprising dividing the difference by the estimated pixel noise parameter (see column 3 line 65-column 4 line 7 note that the difference pixel is normalized by dividing the difference image by standard deviation of the noise). The motivation to combine is “The normalized difference sample D.sub.t (x,y) is applied to the two-dimensional spatial filter 23, referenced F.sub.2D, in order to supply the measure of probability of motion” (see column 4 lines 59-64) One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily the methods of Florent in the motion determinations of Ward. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Florent with Ward and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 13 Ward further discloses wherein the adaptive noise filter in included in a plurality of adaptive noise filters (see figure 1 note that the motion adaptive temporal filter is followed by the motion adaptive spatial filter, see also column 8 lines 35-40 note that the output of the motion adaptive temporal filter is output to the adaptive spatial filter.).
Re claim 14 Ward further disclose wherein the adaptive noise filter is further configured to: provide the output frame of filtered pixel data to a second adaptive noise filter included in the plurality of adaptive noise filter (see figure 1 note that the motion adaptive temporal filter is followed by the motion adaptive spatial filter, see also column 8 lines 35-40 note that the output of the motion adaptive temporal filter is output to the adaptive spatial filter.)..
Re claim 17 Ward further discloses determining, based on the comparison, an amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through a filter; and obtaining the filtered pixel based on the amount of the signal level of the first pixel to allow to pass through the filter (see column 8 lines 5-15 note that a pixel is only combined with previous pixels if it is still therefore it the pixel is not still only the pixel level [i.e. the full amount] will pass through the filter).
Re claim 20 Ward discloses wherein: the second pixel is at a same location in a previous frame captured by the image sensor prior in time to the capture of the first frame as a location of the first pixel in the first frame (see ward column 6 lines 10-15 note that the image difference in between a current pixel and a corresponding pixel in the previous frame).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward US 6,061,100 in view of Lim et al US 2007/0009175 and Florent US 6,151,417 in further view of Rakhshanfar US 2017/0084007.
Re claim 4 Ward and Lim do not expressly disclose outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame. Rakhshanfar discloses outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). The motivation to combine is to remove the noise remaining after temporal processing (see paragraph 130). One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the spatial filter of Ward to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with Florent Ward and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 5 Ward and Lim do not expressly disclose providing the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter Rakshanfar disclose sproviding the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). The motivation to combine is to remove the noise remaining after temporal processing (see paragraph 130). One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the spatial filter of Ward to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with Ward, Florent and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 15 Ward discloses an adaptive noise filter (see figure 1 adaptive temporal filter) Ward and Lim do not expressly disclose outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame. Rakhshanfar discloses outputting pixel noise corresponding to the filtered pixel to a noise output frame (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). The motivation to combine is to remove the noise remaining after temporal processing (see paragraph 130). One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the spatial filter of Ward to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with Ward Florent and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 16 Ward discloses an adaptive noise filter (see figure 1 adaptive temporal filter) Ward and Lim do not expressly disclose providing the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter Rakshanfar discloses providing the noise output frame of pixel noise data from a first adaptive noise filter to a second adaptive noise filter (see paragraph 127 -131 note that a residual noise map of temporally filtered image data is generated to guide the spatial filtering process). The motivation to combine is to remove the noise remaining after temporal processing (see paragraph 130). One of ordinary skill in the art could have modified the spatial filter of Ward to account for the residual noise as described in Rakhshanfar. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Rakhshanfar with Ward Florent and Lim to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome the double patenting rejections. Claim 7, 8, 18 and 19 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
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 SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights