DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claims 1-2, 8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (Region-based Multi-focus Image Fusion Using the Local Spatial Frequency, 2013) in view of Salvador (US 9,258,518).
Referring to claims 1 and 15, Li discloses a method of fusing a primary image (fig. 1, blurred Lena; fig. 2b, source image) and a secondary image (fig. 1, original Lena; fig. 2a, source image), wherein the primary image is noisier than the secondary image (fig. 1, blurred Lena is nosier; fig. 2b has larger blurred area than fig. 2a), and wherein the primary image and secondary image are partitioned into regions (figs. 2c/2d of fig. 2a, and figs. 2e/2f of fig. 2b), the method comprising:
determining a local noise level of a region of the primary image (fig. 2b, determine fig. 2e is focused/non-blurred, fig. 2f is non-focused/blurred, calculated in table 2);
deriving a first component (fig. 2f, non-focused blurred block) from said region (fig. 2f of fig. 2b) of the primary image, and a second component (fig. 2d, focused block) from a corresponding region (fig. 2d of fig. 2a) of the secondary image;
combining the first component and the second component into a target image region (figs. 4a/4b/4f, combine focused clock region 4a with non-focused 4b to merged result 4f; fig. 3, merge regions);
repeating the preceding steps for any remaining image regions (fig. 3, for each region perform compare and merge); and
merging all output target image regions thus obtained into a target image (fig. 3, merge all regions to fused image);
characterized in that the second component’s relative contribution (fig. 2e, focused region contribution) to the target image region increases gradually (table 2, focused area contribution increases to the result of decrease ratio) with the determined local noise level of the region of the primary image (fig. 2f, noise level of fig. 2b).
Li does not clearly disclose a low-frequency LF component, a high-frequency HF component, wherein the LF and HF components refer to a common cut-off frequency.
Salvador discloses a low-frequency LF component (fig. 13b, low pass filter; 12:59-13:3), a high-frequency HF component (fig. 13b, high-pass filter; 12:59-13:3), wherein the LF and HF components refer to a common cut-off frequency (12:49-59, cut-off frequency at low-pass filter and high-pass filter).
Li and Salvador are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor in image processing. At the time of the filing, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, having the teaching of Li and Salvador before him or her to modify the image segment size of Li to include the cut-off frequency requirement of Salvador, thereafter the region size of images includes cut-off frequency. The suggestion and/or motivation for doing so would be obtaining the advantage of improved spatial resolution (3:1-20) as suggested by Salvador. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Li with Salvador to obtain the invention as specified in the instant application claims.
As to claim 2, Salvador discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the cut-off frequency is variable across the primary image (12:65-13:12, images L1, H1), the method comprising determining the cut-off frequency for a region (fig. 12, patches P) of the primary image on the basis of the local noise level of said region (9:9-33, patch size vs high/low frequency bands).
As to claim 8, Salvador discloses the method of claim 1, comprising determining a local noise level (9:39-44, determine low frequency low-resolution patch) of the corresponding region of the secondary image, wherein the HF component’s relative contribution is determined such that the target image region’s local noise level is below a threshold noise level (9:59-66, sum of values from contributing patches).
As to claim 13, Salvador discloses the method of claim 1, comprising normalizing (fig. 9, normalize pixel values 190; 5:51-55) the secondary image to the primary image prior to completion of said combining.
As to claim 14, Li discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the local noise level of the region of the primary image is determined using a sensor-noise model (p.3793:col.1-2, spatial frequency formula and models) dependent on a local sensor reading (fig. 1, image of Lana; p.3792:col.1-2, image via lens).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The claim feature of cut-off function determination, weighting coefficient determination, and further limitations on the noise level as required in dependent claims 3-7 and 9-12. None of the prior art on record discloses the limitations as claimed.
Claims 3-7 and 9-12 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.
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 .
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615