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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the neighbor pixels” in line 5 should read “the plurality of the neighbor pixels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: “a plurality of kernels” in line 5 should read “the plurality of kernels”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the neighbor pixels” in line 9 should read “the plurality of the neighbor pixels”. 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a logic device” in claims 11 and 16-19.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation "the pixels" in lines 3 and 5 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 depends directly or indirectly on claims 1 and 11, therefore they are rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANG (US20150093041) hereafter KANG.
1. Regarding claim 1, KANG discloses a method (figs 1, 3, 5-9 shows a method) comprising:
receiving an image frame comprising a plurality of pixels having associated pixel values (fig 1, paras 0036-0038 shows and discloses receiving an image frame (left side of fig 1) comprising a plurality of pixels having associated pixel values);
selecting a kernel of the pixels comprising a center pixel and a plurality of neighbor pixels (figs 1, fig 9 (824) and paras 0070, 0078-0080, 0084-0085, 0100-0102 shows and discloses selecting (using) a kernel of pixels comprising a center pixel and a plurality of neighbor pixels); and
if the center pixel value exhibits an anomalous pixel condition (fig 1, para 0038 discloses “the center pixel 11 may have a noise therein (i.e if the center pixel exhibits an anomalous pixel condition), examiner notes that the specifics of anomalous pixel condition are not required by the current claim), calculating a replacement pixel value using a gradient associated with at least a subset of pixel values of the neighbor pixels (fig 1 right side is the noise removed image, fig 3, paras 0015, 0038-0040, 0042, 0056, 0079-0080, 0085-0086, 0101-0102 shows and discloses calculating a replacement pixel value (i.e the removing of the noise in the center pixel (as seen in image 1 right side)) using the difference values (i.e gradient or deviation or differences) in the center pixel 100 and the nearby pixels (i.e a subset of pixel values of the neighbor pixels (as seen in fig 1 (left side image)) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a gradient are not required by the current claim).
2. Regarding claim 2, KANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the gradient is a smallest gradient associated with pixel values of second order neighbor pixels of the kernel (fig 1 bottom portion of patches 200 may be interpreted as the second order of the neighbor pixels and paras 0079, 0085 discloses the minimum value of the differences (i.e smallest gradient associated) of the pixel values of the center pixel and the neighbor pixels meeting the above claim limitations).
3. Claim 11 is a corresponding system claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. KANG shows and discloses a logic device in paras 0091-0092 and fig 8 (800).
4. Claim 12 is a corresponding system claim of claim 2. See the corresponding explanation of claim 2.
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.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANG in view of Kostrzewa et al. (US10425603) hereafter Kostrzewa.
5. Regarding claim 10, KANG discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the image frame is
Kostrzewa discloses wherein the image frame is a thermal image (fig 1 elements 170, 130, col 4 lines 47-56) and a kernel is a 3 pixel by 3 pixel kernel (fig 3, col 11 lines 15-17 shows a kernel 3 pixel by 3 pixel kernel). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, KANG and Kostrzewa are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a reliable and efficient method/system at col 1 lines 42-43. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Kostrzewa in the method of KANG to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10.
6. Claim 20 is a corresponding system claim of claim 10. Kostrzewa discloses a thermal imager 130 capturing the thermal image of the scene 170 (fig 1 elements 170, 130, col 4 lines 47-56) and a kernel is a 3 pixel by 3 pixel kernel (fig 3, col 11 lines 15-17 shows a kernel 3 pixel by 3 pixel kernel).
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-9 and 13-19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
JAYESH PATEL
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677