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 with respect to claims 1, 5, and 12 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN113890961A, hereinafter “CN’961” in view of GB2605667A, hereinaftrer “GB’667.”
The examiner notes that all citations to CN’961 listed below refer to the previously supplied English translation of CN’961.
As per claims 1 and 12, CN’961 discloses a method of denoising an input image (and the computer-readable medium of claim 12, see page 2, 2nd full paragraph), the method comprising: segmenting input image data (see page 1, 2nd paragraph under the heading “Summary of the Invention”) representing the input image into a plurality of input tiles (“blocks”); generating a corresponding plurality of output tiles (blocks are processed one-by-one, i.e. “traversed” to create output blocks that are denoised) by processing each of the plurality of input tiles (target blocks) using a respective thread group (as broadly claimed “thread group” is considered the traversal across the input blocks one-by-one, with each block representing a separate thread of processing); extracting a set of core pixels from each output tile of the plurality of output tiles (core tiles are the “target block” with padding of pixels surrounding the target block being “adjacent blocks”); and generating a denoised output image using the extracted core pixels (each of the target blocks in the image are used once, with repeated execution of steps 2 and 3 in order to “obtain a denoised image”).
However, CN’961 fails to disclose the concurrent processing of the input tiles.
In the same field of endeavor (denoising an image), GB’667 discloses at page 22, “Tiling” [00123] that the image is initially broken into a plurality of tiles, and processing of each tile can be performed in parallel, i.e. concurrently processed.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the series processing of tiles taught by CN’961 and instead used parallel processing of the tiles as taught by GB’667 as doing so would have enabled a facilitation of increased processing speed as taught by GB’667 at [00123].
As per claim 5, CN’961 discloses wherein segmenting the original input image into the plurality of input tiles comprises padding each of the plurality of input tiles using data associated with one or more pixels adjacent to each input tile (see page 1, 2nd paragraph under “Summary of the Invention - “adjacent blocks” surrounding the “target” (core) block).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 6-11 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.
Claims 13-21 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art cited disclose the general state of the art for denoising images via segmentation of the input image.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672