DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-24 are pending in this application. Claims 1-24 are being examined with the priority date of 01/16/2023. Claims 1-16 and 24 have been amended in this application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 12/24/2025) regarding the claim interpretations under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been fully considered by the examiner, given that the previously invoking terms have been removed from the claims the previous 112(f) interpretations have been withdrawn. However, the applicant has amended the claims to add the component of “image processing device” in place of the previous placeholders, which is a generic placeholder modified by functional language without providing sufficient structure for performing the claimed acts (MPEP § 2181). Given that the newly added placeholder of “image processing device” meets the three requirements detailed in MPEP § 2181 the examiner has elected to interpret claims 2-15 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
35 U.S.C. 102 and 103
The applicant’s arguments (see Remarks filed 12/24/2025) regarding the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 102 under Tachi Source 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, in view of the change in scope to newly amended claims 1, 16 and 24 a new grounds of rejection is presented in view of Tachi source 1 and Honda and fully discussed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim recites the term “impage processing device” rather than “image processing device”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitations are:
Image Processing device in claims 2-15 and 24
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-11, 16-18, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachi (Hereinafter Tachi 1, CA 2861220 A1) in view of Honda (US 20100157091 A1).
Regarding claim 1 Tachi 1 discloses; An image processing device
generate a determination area corresponding to a candidate defective pixel based on externally received pixel values (Tachi 1, [0009] the signal processing unit (determination area manager), obtains a references pixel and an attention pixel (candidate defective pixel) which falls within a reference area (determination area), in which pixel values are received for the pixels in the area);
(Tachi 1, [0010] the signal processing unit determines whether one or more saturated pixel values exist in the values of the interpolated white pixels in the area);
[select, prior to determining whether a candidate defective pixel has a defect, reference pixels to be either white pixels included in the determination area or non-white color pixels included in the determination area, based on whether the determination area is determined to be saturated;]
the selected reference pixels; (Tachi 1, [0009] Reference pixels in an area are used to calculate a compensation pixel value for the attention/target pixel (the pixel that is defective or being assessed for a defect), )
and the defect based on both the reference value (Tachi 1, [0081] whether or not the target pixel has a defect is determined, [0083] the defect determination is done by comparing the target value with a compensation pixel value, which is determined using the white pixel saturation as described in [0009]-[0010]) and second pixel values of determination pixels having a color identical to that of the candidate defective pixel, among pixels included in the determination area (Tachi 1, [0076] the defect determination can be completed by looking at reference pixels in the same neighborhood (same determination area) as the target/attention pixel (pixel with the defect), and which have the same color, and then can determine and compensate for the defect).
Tachi 1 does not teach; select, prior to determining whether a candidate defective pixel has a defect, reference pixels to be either white pixels included in the determination area or non-white color pixels included in the determination area, based on whether the determination area is determined to be saturated;
However, in the same field of endeavor Honda teaches; select, prior to determining whether a candidate defective pixel has a defect, reference pixels to be either white pixels included in the determination area or non-white color pixels included in the determination area, based on whether the determination area is determined to be saturated (Honda, [0113] the correction processing section determined whether a selected target white pixel is saturated [0114] if it is determined the target pixel or pixel block is not saturated, the target pixel used is white, [0115] if the target pixel is saturated, color pixels are used in the correction interpolation function, this step occurs prior to a determination that the target pixel has low illuminance and requires correction, which the examiner is interpreting as a determination of defect);
PNG
media_image1.png
524
860
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Honda, Figure 10)
PNG
media_image2.png
612
774
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Honda Figure 12)
PNG
media_image3.png
668
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(Honda, [0112]-[0116])
The combination of Tachi 1 and Honda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect correction using neighboring pixels but does not teach a determination of reference pixel color prior to the determination that the target pixel is defective. Honda teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that pixel adjustment and correction values being generated based on saturation values can help prevent image blurring (Honda, [0001]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 2 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device determines a size of the determination area based on a color of the candidate defective pixel (Tachi 1, [0011] the reference area is a 2 dimensional area which contains the target/attention pixel, where the reference pixel, which is also in the area, has the same color as the target/attention pixel (candidate defective pixel), [0028] describes the reference area as a 7x7 pixel reference area, where the target pixel is in the center, this area must also contain a reference pixel which is the same color. Since the reference area is set and must contain a reference pixel of the same color as the target pixel, the determination of the area must be based on the color as well).
Regarding claim 3 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device determines a size of the determination area based on the number of the determination pixels (Tachi 1, [0027] for the pixel arrangements and selection of the reference area (determination area) there must be a certain amount of reference pixels present or else the correction precision is reduced, [0028] the pixel area must have the target/attention pixel at the center, and as few as 4 reference pixels present, which examiner is interpreting as there is a minimum amount of reference pixels which must be present in order to complete the calculation, therefore the amount of pixels is used to determine the area).
Regarding claim 4 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device counts the number of the saturated white pixels (Tachi 1, [0056] Four white interpolation pixels are assigned, and [0057] a saturation processing determines which and how many of each of the white pixels are saturated), pixel values of which are greater than a saturation reference value ([0057] if the white pixels are a maximum pixel values, they are determined to be saturated),
and determines whether the determination area is saturated based on the number of the saturated white pixels and a saturation threshold number (Tachi 1, [0151] The signal processing unit determines whether the white pixels in the area are saturated (determining if the area is saturated based on the white pixels) and then uses this determination to calculated the compensation value).
Regarding claim 5 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 4, wherein the image processing device determines at least one of the saturation reference value or the saturation threshold number based on a size of the determination area (Tachi 1, [0151] The signal processing unit (determination area manager) determines whether the white pixels in the area are saturated (determining if the area is saturated based on the white pixels) and then uses this determination to calculated the compensation value (reference value)).
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device calculates the reference value based on both a mean absolute deviation of the first pixel values (Tachi 1, [0066] the average of the pixels that are adjacent to the pixel of interest, further, figure 8 illustrates this calculation, showing that if the white pixel is saturated, the values are averaged and the absolute value of the differences are taken, which is functionally equivalent to the mean absolute deviation) and a dynamic range that is a difference between a maximum value and a minimum value, among the first pixel values (Tachi 1, [0082] the minimum and maximum values of the pixels in the reference neighborhood area are determined).
PNG
media_image4.png
486
694
media_image4.png
Greyscale
(Tachi, Figure 8)
Regarding claim 10 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device sets green pixels included in the determination area as the reference pixels in response to a case in which the determination area is in a saturated state (Tachi 1, Figure 9, when the white pixel being used in interpolation (reference pixel) is saturated, the smoothing weight (correction/reference value) is computed from a color pixel, [0056] says the pixel used in place of the white pixel being saturated (a case where the area is saturated) can be a red green or blue pixel, Examiner is interpreting this as being analogous to the setting of the reference pixel to a green pixel).
PNG
media_image5.png
446
618
media_image5.png
Greyscale
(Tachi, figure 9)
Regarding claim 11 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device sets white pixels included in the determination area as the reference pixels in response to a case in which the determination area is not in a saturated state (Tachi 1, Figure 9 shows that when the interpolation pixel is a white pixel and is not saturated that it is used as a reference pixel to calculate the compensation smoothing value).
Regarding claim 16 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; An image processing method, comprising:
generating a determination area corresponding to a candidate defective pixel based on externally received pixel values (Tachi 1, [0009] the signal processing unit (determination area manager), obtains a references pixel and an attention pixel (candidate defective pixel) which falls within a reference area (determination area), in which pixel values are received for the pixels in the area);
determining whether the determination area is saturated based on pixel values of white pixels included in the determination area (Tachi 1, [0010] the signal processing unit determines whether one or more saturated pixel values exist in the values of the interpolated white pixels in the area);
selecting, prior to determining whether a candidate defective pixel has a defect, reference pixels to be either white pixels included in the determination area or non-white color pixels included in the determination area, based on whether the determination area is determined to be saturated (Honda, [0113] the correction processing section determined whether a selected target white pixel is saturated [0114] if it is determined the target pixel or pixel block is not saturated, the target pixel used is white, [0115] if the target pixel is saturated, color pixels are used in the correction interpolation function, this step occurs prior to a determination that the target pixel has low illuminance and requires correction, which the examiner is interpreting as a determination of defect);
calculating a reference value based on first pixel values of reference pixels (Tachi 1, [0009] Reference pixels in an area are used to calculate a compensation pixel value for the attention/target pixel (the pixel that is defective));
and determining whether the candidate defective pixel has the defect based on both the reference value and second pixel values of determination pixels having a color identical to that of the candidate defective pixel, among pixels included in the determination area (Tachi 1, [0081] whether or not the target pixel has a defect is determined, [0083] the defect determination is done by comparing the target value with a compensation pixel value, which is determined using the white pixel saturation as described in [0009]-[0010], [0076] the defect determination can be completed by looking at reference pixels in the same neighborhood (same determination area) as the target/attention pixel (pixel with the defect), and which have the same color, and then can determine and compensate for the defect).
The combination of Tachi 1 and Honda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect correction using neighboring pixels but does not teach a determination of reference pixel color prior to the determination that the target pixel is defective. Honda teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that pixel adjustment and correction values being generated based on saturation values can help prevent image blurring (Honda, [0001]-[0010]).
Regarding claim 17 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, wherein the generating of the determination area comprises: determining a size of the determination area such that the number of the determination pixels is greater than a preset threshold value (Tachi 1, [0027] for the pixel arrangements and selection of the reference area (determination area) there must be a certain amount of reference pixels present or else the correction precision is reduced, [0028] the pixel area must have the target/attention pixel at the center, and as few as 4 reference pixels present, which examiner is interpreting as there is a minimum amount of reference pixels which must be present in order to complete the calculation, therefore the amount of pixels is used to determine the area, since there is minimum amount of pixels that must be present in the area there is a preset threshold that must be met or exceeded).
Regarding claim 18 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, wherein the determining of whether the determination area is saturated comprises:
counting the number of the saturated white pixels (Tachi 1, [0056] Four white interpolation pixels are assigned, and [0057] a saturation processing determines which and how many of each of the white pixels are saturated), pixel values of which are greater than a saturation reference value (Tachi 1, [0057] if the white pixels are a maximum pixel values, they are determined to be saturated);
and determining whether the determination area is saturated based on the number of the saturated white pixels and a saturation threshold number (Tachi 1, [0151] The signal processing unit determines whether the white pixels in the area are saturated (determining if the area is saturated based on the white pixels) and then uses this determination to calculated the compensation value).
Regarding claim 21 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, wherein the calculating of the reference value comprises:
setting green pixels included in the determination area as the reference pixels in response to a case in which the determination area is in a saturated state (Tachi 1, Figure 9, when the white pixel being used in interpolation (reference pixel) is saturated, the smoothing weight (correction/reference value) is computed from a color pixel, [0056] says the pixel used in place of the white pixel being saturated (a case where the area is saturated) can be a red green or blue pixel, Examiner is interpreting this as being analogous to the setting of the reference pixel to a green pixel).
Regarding claim 22 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, wherein the calculating of the reference value comprises:
setting white pixels included in the determination area as the reference pixels in response to a case in which the determination area is not in a saturated state (Tachi 1, Figure 9 shows that when the interpolation pixel is a white pixel and is not saturated that it is used as a reference pixel to calculate the compensation smoothing value).
2. Claims 7-9, 12, 14-15, 19-20 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachi (Hereinafter Tachi 1) (CA 2861220 A1) in view of Honda (US 20100157091 A1) and in further view of Tachi (hereinafter Tachi 2) (US 20140253808 A1).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Tachi 1 and Honda fails to teach; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the the image processing device corrects the reference value based on a ratio of the first pixel values to the second pixel values in response to a case in which a color of the reference pixels is different from a color of the candidate defective pixel.
However, in the same filed of endeavor, Tachi 2 teaches; wherein the the image processing device corrects the reference value based on a ratio of the first pixel values to the second pixel values in response to a case in which a color of the reference pixels is different from a color of the candidate defective pixel (Tachi 2,[0027] the correct the pixels gradients are computed based upon the pixel interpolation for the target pixel [0031] to correct the target pixel, a gradient is calculated for a case where reference pixels are different colors using weighted addition of high and low frequency gradient information, which the examiner is interpreting as being analogous to a ratio given that gradient computation includes division or ratio calculation, and in this case information from two different sets of pixel values is used).
PNG
media_image6.png
494
730
media_image6.png
Greyscale
(Tachi 2, Figure 7)
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda and Tachi 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of correcting defective pixels by calculating a compensation/correction value using white pixels and pixels of the same color, but not for a case when the defective pixel is a difference color than the reference. Tachi 2 remedies this by teaching a case where pixel gradients can be calculated to correct defective pixels in cases where the pixels are the same and where they are different in color. The motivation for the combination is that the methods of Tachi 2 allow for correction of the defective pixel regardless of the color of the surrounding areas. (Tachi 2 [0025]-[0032])
Regarding claim 8 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device determines whether the candidate defective pixel has a defect based on both a defect threshold number (Tachi 2, [0340] if the gradient for a target pixel is equal to or less than a threshold value it is marked for correction (determination of a defect requiring correction)) and a number of homogenous pixels for which a difference between the second pixel values and a pixel value of the candidate defective pixel, among the determination pixels, is greater than the reference value (Tachi 2, [0161] gradients/differences in pixel values are determined in 8 directions, which includes differences between pixels of the same color (homogenous) in the determination area as shown in Figure 5 and 6, [0299]-[0399] if the value for the pixel value gradient/differences is less than a threshold these pixels are used to determine a smoother replacement signal to correct the target pixel, since a value under a threshold indicates a normal pixel to be used in pixel corrections, the Examiner is interpreting this threshold to mean that a value larger than the threshold would be a defective pixel which needs correction of some kind).
PNG
media_image7.png
426
668
media_image7.png
Greyscale
(Tachi 2, Figure 5)
PNG
media_image8.png
372
660
media_image8.png
Greyscale
(Tachi 2, Figure 6)
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of correcting defective pixels by calculating a compensation/correction value using white pixels and pixels of the same color, but not using a threshold to verify the defect. Tachi 2 teaches this limitation, further the motivation for combining the two methods lies in that the method of Tachi 2 allows for determination of a defect and defect correction in multiple pixel arrangement situations, by using a gradient calculation in multiple directions compared to a threshold which allows for comparison and correction using multiple reference pixels. (Tachi 2, [0017]-[0033])
Regarding claim 9 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing device according to claim 8, wherein the image processing device determines the defect threshold number based on a size of the determination area (Tachi 1, the compensation pixel value (threshold for correction) is determined from the pixels in the reference area, and the pixel number and positions are used in this calculation, which are dependent on the size of the area).
Regarding claim 12 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the image processing device comprises:
a pixel value corrector (Tachi 1, figure 16, Color Pixel Defect Compensation Unit), in response to a case in which the candidate defective pixel is further determined to be a defective pixel, configured to (Tachi 1, [0078] determination is made on whether the pixel has a defect or not):
calculate slope values for preset directions based on the first pixel values (Tachi 2, [0017] pixel gradients (slope values) are detected in 8 directions based on pixel values);
calculate temporary correction values corresponding to the preset directions based on the second pixel values (Tachi 2, [0026] an interpolated pixel value (temporary correction value) is calculated based on the reference pixel values (second pixel values));
and correct a pixel value of a defective pixel based on the slope values and the temporary correction values (Tachi 2, [0027] the correction smoothing value is applied to the target pixel (defective pixel), where the smoothed signal is based on the gradients (slopes) and interpolated pixel value (temporary correction value)).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect detection and correction, but not using slopes or gradients of the pixel values. Tachi 2 teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that the use of a slope/gradient based on the pixel values would allow for interpolation and color correction based on pixels in the area. (Tachi 2 [0015]-[0027])
Regarding claim 14 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing device according to claim 12, wherein the the image processing device calculates the slope values for a horizontal direction, a vertical direction (Tachi 2, figure 5, a vertical and a horizontal direction gradients shown as V and H are computed), a 45-degree direction (Tachi 2, [0043] top and bottom right and left 45 degree gradients are calculated (45 degree direction slope)), and a 135-degree direction (Tachi 2, in [0150]-[0158] details that 8 gradients are calculated in different directions, including two 45 degree gradients that cross one another and form 4 angles in different quadrant’s, The examiner is interpreting the second 45 degree gradient (gradient D) as being analogous to the 135 degree angle claimed because is a unit circle ordered pair angle to 45 degrees in the second quadrant, Examiner has included an annotated figure 5 showing the gradients and a unit circle annotated to show the equivalency using the ordered pairs).
PNG
media_image9.png
232
529
media_image9.png
Greyscale
(Tachi 2, annotated figure 5, where H and V are the X and Y axis respectively, and A is the first 45-degree gradient and D is the 135 angle)
PNG
media_image10.png
502
554
media_image10.png
Greyscale
(Unit circle demonstrating the angular equivalency)
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect detection and correction, but not using slopes or gradients of the pixel values. Tachi 2 teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that the use of a slope/gradient based on the pixel values would allow for interpolation and color correction based on pixels in the area (Tachi 2 [0015]-[0027]). Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in determining the angle directions, gradients creating a 45-degree angle in each quadrant are equivalent to the paired angles on the unit circle.
Regarding claim 15 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing device according to claim 12, wherein the the image processing device calculates average pixel values of pixels respectively located in the preset directions of the defective pixel, among the determination pixels, as the temporary correction values (Tachi 1, [0041] average pixel values for the pixels surrounding the defective pixel are determined and interpolated to get a correction value).
Regarding claim 19 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, wherein the calculating of the reference value comprises:
calculating the reference value based on a dynamic range that is a difference between a mean absolute deviation of the first pixel values and a maximum value and a minimum value, among the first pixel values (Tachi 1 [0066] the average of the pixels that are adjacent to the pixel of interest, further, figure 8 illustrates this calculation, showing that if the white pixel is saturated, the values are averaged and the absolute value of the differences are taken, which is functionally equivalent to the mean absolute deviation,[0082] the minimum and maximum values of the pixels in the reference neighborhood area are determined));
and correcting the reference value based on a ratio of the first pixel values to the second pixel values in response to a case in which a color of the reference pixels is different from a color of the candidate defective pixel (Tachi 2,[0027] the correct the pixels gradients are computed based upon the pixel interpolation for the target pixel [0031] to correct the target pixel, a gradient is calculated for a case where reference pixels are different colors using weighted addition of high and low frequency gradient information, which the examiner is interpreting as being analogous to a ratio given that gradient computation includes division or ratio calculation, and in this case information from two different sets of pixel values is used).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of correcting defective pixels by calculating a compensation/correction value using white pixels and pixels of the same color, but not for a case when the defective pixel is a difference color than the reference. Tachi 2 remedies this by teaching a case where pixel gradients can be calculated to correct defective pixels in cases where the pixels are the same and where they are different in color. The motivation for the combination is that the methods of Tachi 2 allow for correction of the defective pixel regardless of the color of the surrounding areas. (Tachi 2 [0025]-[0032]).
Regarding claim 20 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, wherein the determining of whether the candidate defective pixel has a defect comprises:
determining whether the candidate defective pixel has a defect based on a defect threshold number (Tachi 2, [0340] if the gradient for a target pixel is equal to or less than a threshold value it is marked for correction (determination of a defect requiring correction)) and a number of homogenous pixels for which a difference between the second pixel values and a pixel value of the candidate defective pixel, among the determination pixels, is greater than the reference value (Tachi 2, [0161] gradients/differences in pixel values are determined in 8 directions, which includes differences between pixels of the same color (homogenous) in the determination area as shown in Figure 5 and 6, [0299]-[0399] if the value for the pixel value gradient/differences is less than a threshold these pixels are used to determine a smoother replacement signal to correct the target pixel, since a value under a threshold indicates a normal pixel to be used in pixel corrections, the Examiner is interpreting this threshold to mean that a value larger than the threshold would be a defective pixel which needs correction of some kind).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of correcting defective pixels by calculating a compensation/correction value using white pixels and pixels of the same color, but not using a threshold to verify the defect. Tachi 2 teaches this limitation, further the motivation for combining the two methods lies in that the method of Tachi 2 allows for determination of a defect and defect correction in multiple pixel arrangement situations, by using a gradient calculation in multiple directions compared to a threshold which allows for comparison and correction using multiple reference pixels. (Tachi 2, [0017]-[0033])
Regarding claim 23 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 teaches; The image processing method according to claim 16, further comprising: in response to a case in which the candidate defective pixel is determined to be a defective pixel:
calculating slope values for preset directions based on the first pixel values (Tachi 2, [0017] pixel gradients (slope values) are detected in 8 directions based on pixel values);
calculating temporary correction values corresponding to the preset directions based on the second pixel values (Tachi 2, [0026] an interpolated pixel value (temporary correction value) is calculated based on the reference pixel values (second pixel values));
and correcting a pixel value of the defective pixel based on the slope values and the temporary correction values (Tachi 2, [0027] the correction smoothing value is applied to the target pixel (defective pixel), where the smoothed signal is based on the gradients (slopes) and interpolated pixel value (temporary correction value)).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect detection and correction, but not using slopes or gradients of the pixel values. Tachi 2 teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that the use of a slope/gradient based on the pixel values would allow for interpolation and color correction based on pixels in the area. (Tachi 2 [0015]-[0027])
Claims 13 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tachi (Hereinafter Tachi 1) (CA 2861220 A1) in view of in view of Honda (US 20100157091 A1) and in Tachi (hereinafter Tachi 2) (US 20140253808 A1) and in further view of Gwang (KR 102018246 B1).
Regarding claim 13 The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 fails to teach; The image processing device according to claim 12, wherein the the image processing device:
calculates a correction value for the defective pixel by obtaining a weighted sum of reciprocals of the slope values and the temporary correction values, and outputs the correction value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of pixel correction, Gwang teaches;
calculates a correction value for the defective pixel by obtaining a weighted sum of reciprocals of the slope values (Gwang, [0128] a weighted function of the inverse gradients is generated) and the temporary correction values, and outputs the correction value (Gwang, [0128] the system generates a final correction value based on the gradient inverse function (reciprocal slopes) and the initial correction value estimate (temporary correction value)).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, Tachi 2 and Gwang would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. The addition of the calculation of the final correction value using an initial estimated correction value and inverse gradient values as taught in Gwang would allow for sufficient estimation to obtain missing or defective pixel information and correct the defect. (Gwang, [0063]-[0066])
Regarding claim 24 the combination of Tachi 1, Honda, Tachi 2 and Gwang teach; An image processing system, comprising:
an image sensor including white pixels and non-white color pixels (Tachi 1, Figure 16, 150 imaging element, which shows white and color pixels);
and an image processing device configured to detect defective pixels included in the image sensor based on pixel values received from the image sensor and configured to correct pixel values of the defective pixels, wherein the image processing device (Tachi 1, Figure 16 shows a processing device with a pixel defect compensation unit and a signal processing unit which detect and correct the pixel values) is further ;
generate a determination area corresponding to a candidate defective pixel based on externally received pixel values (Tachi 1[0009] the signal processing unit (determination area manager), obtains a references pixel and an attention pixel (candidate defective pixel) which falls within a reference area (determination area), in which pixel values are received for the pixels in the area);
and(Tachi 1 [0010] the signal processing unit determines whether one or more saturated pixel values exist in the values of the interpolated white pixels in the area);
select, prior to determining whether a candidate defective pixel has a defect, reference pixels to be either white pixels included in the determination area or non-white color pixels included in the determination area, based on whether the determination area is determined to be saturated (Honda, [0113] the correction processing section determined whether a selected target white pixel is saturated [0114] if it is determined the target pixel or pixel block is not saturated, the target pixel used is white, [0115] if the target pixel is saturated, color pixels are used in the correction interpolation function, this step occurs prior to a determination that the target pixel has low illuminance and requires correction, which the examiner is interpreting as a determination of defect);
calculate a reference value based on first pixel values of the selected reference pixels (Tachi 1,[0009] Reference pixels in an area are used to calculate a compensation pixel value for the attention/target pixel (the pixel that is defective);
and determine whether a candidate defective pixel has a defect based on both the reference value (Tachi 1, [0081] whether or not the target pixel has a defect is determined, [0083] the defect determination is done by comparing the target value with a compensation pixel value, which is determined using the white pixel saturation as described in [0009]-[0010]) and second pixel values of determination pixels having a color identical to that of the candidate defective pixel, among pixels included in the determination area (Tachi 1, [0076] the defect determination can be completed by looking at reference pixels in the same neighborhood (same determination area) as the target/attention pixel (pixel with the defect), and which have the same color, and then can determine and compensate for the defect);
wherein the impage processing device, in response to a case in which the candidate defective pixel is determined to be a defective pixel, is further configured to (Tachi 1, [0078] determination is made on whether the pixel has a defect or not):
calculate slope values for preset directions based on the first pixel values;
calculate temporary correction values corresponding to the preset directions based on the second pixel values;
The combination of Tachi 1 and Honda would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect correction using neighboring pixels but does not teach a determination of reference pixel color prior to the determination that the target pixel is defective. Honda teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that pixel adjustment and correction values being generated based on saturation values can help prevent image blurring (Honda, [0001]-[0010])
The combination of Tachi 1 and Honda does not teach;
calculate slope values for preset directions based on the first pixel values;
calculate temporary correction values corresponding to the preset directions based on the second pixel values;
However, in the same field of endeavor, Tachi 2 teaches;
calculate slope values for preset directions based on the first pixel values (Tachi 2, [0017] pixel gradients (slope values) are detected in 8 directions based on pixel values);
calculate temporary correction values corresponding to the preset directions based on the second pixel values (Tachi 2, [0026] an interpolated pixel value (temporary correction value) is calculated based on the reference pixel values (second pixel values));
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, and Tachi 2 would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect detection and correction, but not using slopes or gradients of the pixel values. Tachi 2 teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that the use of a slope/gradient based on the pixel values would allow for interpolation and color correction based on pixels in the area, additionally the use of slopes/gradients in multiple directions would allow for more accurate interpolation of the pixel values to generate the corrected pixel values because more non-defective data is included in the calculation (Tachi 2 [0015]-[0027]).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda and Tachi 2 fails to teach;
calculate a correction value by obtaining a weighted sum of reciprocals of the slope values and the temporary correction values and the temporary correction values;
and output the correction value as a pixel value of the defective pixel.
Gwang teaches; calculate a correction value by obtaining a weighted sum of reciprocals of the slope values and the temporary correction values (Gwang, [0128] a weighted function of the inverse gradients is generated) and the temporary correction values (Gwang, [0128] the system generates a final correction value based on the gradient inverse function (reciprocal slopes) and the initial correction value estimate (temporary correction value));
and output the correction value as a pixel value of the defective pixel (Gwang, [0128] the system generates a final correction value based on the gradient inverse function (reciprocal slopes) and the initial correction value estimate (temporary correction value).
The combination of Tachi 1, Honda, Tachi 2 and Gwang would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention. Tachi 1 teaches a method of defect detection and correction, but not using slopes or gradients of the pixel values. Tachi 2 teaches this deficiency, the motivation for the combination lies in that the use of a slope/gradient based on the pixel values would allow for interpolation and color correction based on pixels in the area (Tachi 2 [0015]-[0027]). Further, the addition of the calculation of the final correction value using an initial estimated correction value and inverse gradient values as taught in Gwang would allow for sufficient estimation to obtain missing or defective pixel information and correct the defect. (Gwang, [0063]-[0066]).
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. For a listing of analogous art as cited by the examiner, please see the attached PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORDAN M ELLIOTT whose telephone number is (703)756-5463. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM 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, Emily Terrell can be reached at (571) 270-3717. 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.
/J.M.E./Examiner, Art Unit 2666
/EMILY C TERRELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2666