DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the Application filed on 02/09/2024.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Priority
The Application claims priority to KR10-2023-0018106 with filing date 02/10/2023, which is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statements
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDSs) filed on 06/03/2024 and 02/21/2025 have both been fully considered by the examiner.
Specification
Paragraph 0035 of the originally filed specification was previously amended by Applicant to refer to the two positions in Figures 5-6 in terms of grayscale (i.e. “deep dark” instead of “green” and “light dark” instead of “red”). However, paragraphs 0039 and 0041 still use the previous terms of green and red instead of deep dark and light dark, respectively.
The examiner requests amendment of paragraphs 0039 and 0041 to ensure all descriptions follow the grayscale phraseology instead of the color-based phraseology.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are objected to.
Regarding claims 2 and 7, the examiner requests that the meaning of the variables δ, f, θ, h, and W of equation 1 be added to each of claims 2 and 7, as described in at least paragraph 0039 of the originally-filed specification, as doing so would make it easier for the public to ascertain the scope of the claims.
Regarding claims 3 and 8, the examiner requests that the meaning of the variables kn, n, δ1 and δ2 of equation 2 be added to each of claims 3 and 8, as described in at least paragraph 0042 of the originally-filed specification, as doing so would make it easier for the public to ascertain the scope of the claims.
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 1-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-5, each of the following quotations from the claims have emphasis added via underline.
There is an inconsistency across claims 1-5 regarding whether there is a single sub-aperture image or a plurality of sub-aperture images. For example, claim 1 recites a first step of modeling PSF for a sub-aperture image of an acquired light field. However, claim 1 further recites deriving an optimization code on the basis of the obtained PSF of each sub-aperture image. Furthermore, claim 2, depending upon claim 1, recites expressing a disparity δ between the sub-aperture images, but claim 3, depending upon claim 2, then recites wherein a length Kn of motion blur in the sub-aperture image. Finally, claim 4, depending upon claim 1, recites dividing a minimum value in an MTF graph obtained through PSF of each sub-aperture image.
The examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 3 to indicate that a plurality of sub-aperture images are processed. For example, claim 1 could be amended to read a first step of modeling PSF for each sub-aperture image of an acquired light field, and claim 3 could be amended to read wherein a length Kn of motion blur in each sub-aperture image is expressed as Equation 2 below.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons to claims 1-5 above. More specifically, all of claims 6-9 are consistent regarding the amount of sub-aperture images, except for claim 8, which recites wherein a length (Kn) of motion blur in the sub-aperture image.
The examiner suggests amending claim 8 to read wherein a length (Kn) of motion blur in each sub-aperture image.
For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims will assume that the invention is acting on a plurality of sub-aperture images, as light field images are known in the art to require a plurality of sub-images/sub-aperture images to be captured.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
A method for deblurring a motion in a light field image
in a processing device including at least one processor, the deblurring method comprising:
a first step of modeling PSF for a sub-aperture image of an acquired light field image on the basis of optical parameters;
and a second step of deriving an optimization code on the basis of the obtained PSF of each sub-aperture image.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Parts c-d can be regarded as reciting abstract ideas, including mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Part c recites modeling of PSF (Point Spread Function) for an individual light field image. Other than “on the basis of optical parameters”, the meaning of “modeling” a PSF is broad such that any mental/pen-and-paper determination of a suitable PSF that is informed by optical parameters would fall within the scope of the claim. Part d recites deriving an optimization code, based on the obtained PSF of each sub-aperture image. Again, the only limitation on how the code is derived is that it is based on the obtained PSFs, so any mental/pen-and-paper determination of a code informed by the PSFs would fall within the scope of the claim (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Part a is a preamble that recites that the method is for deblurring motion in a light field image, but the claim does not specify how this deblurring is performed. Part b recites a computerized system at a high level of generality, which amounts to adding the words “apply it” or an equivalent with the judicial exception to implement an abstract idea on a computer (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole is directed to image deblurring, but only recites a computerized system at a high level of generality that performs mental processes, without specifying how said mental processes are used for the deblurring (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 6. Claim 6 is not eligible.
Claims 2 and 7 recite that a disparity between the sub-aperture images is expressed with a specific equation, which is directed to abstract ideas of mathematical formulas or equations. Claims 2 and 7 are not eligible.
Claims 3 and 8 recite that a length of motion blur is expressed with a specific equation, which is directed to abstract ideas of mathematical formulas or equations. Claims 3 and 8 are not eligible.
Claims 4 and 9 recite, in text format, mathematical formulas or equations for determining the optimization code, which is directed to abstract ideas of mathematical formulas or equations. Claims 4 and 9 are not eligible.
Claim 5 recites additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 5 is not eligible.
To overcome the above 101 rejections of claims 1-9, the examiner suggests adding a limitation to independent claims 1 and 6 involving applying the derived optimization code to deblur the light field image. For example, paragraph 0031 of the originally filed specification states “Referring to FIG. 3, in the present disclosure, the light field camera derives PSF of sub-aperture images (SAls) of a light field image acquired on the basis of prior information on a motion of a scene (for example, PSF of a previously acquired frame) and optical parameters of the light field camera for motion deblurring of the image, and deblurs the light field image acquired with an optimization code derived on the basis of the derived PSF of the sub-aperture image to acquire a clear image” (emphasis added via underline).
The examiner notes that, if the above excerpt were to be included verbatim, then to acquire a clear image should be changed to read to acquire a deblurred image to avoid a 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection, as the term “clear image” would be a relative term.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites a computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon, the program causing a computer to execute the deblurring method according to claim 1.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “memory” includes both transitory and non-transitory memories. A transitory memory or signal, while physical and real, does not possess concrete structure that would qualify as a device or part under the definition of a machine, is not a tangible article or commodity under the definition of a manufacture (even though it is man-made and physical in that it exists in the real world and has tangible causes and effects), and is not composed of matter such that it would qualify as a composition of matter, and thus does not fall within a statutory category (see MPEP 2106.03).
To overcome the above 101 rejection of claim 5, the examiner suggests amending claim 5 to read A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon (emphasis added via underline).
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 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Yamany (U.S. Publ. US-2025/0168522-A1) in view of McCloskey (U.S. Publ. US-2012/0069225-A1 ).
Regarding claim 1, El-Yamany discloses a method for deblurring a motion (see paragraph 0125) in a light field image (see paragraph 0107, where an On-Chip-Lens all-focus sensor functions as a light field camera) in a processing device including at least one processor (see paragraph 0048), the deblurring method comprising:
a first step of modeling PSF for a sub-aperture image of an acquired light field image on the basis of optical parameters (see paragraphs 0117-0125, where point spread functions/PSFs can be obtained for each of the sub-aperture image views based on optical parameters such as lens focal length or aperture diameter);
El-Yamany fails to disclose a second step of deriving an optimization code on the basis of the obtained PSF of each sub-aperture image. More specifically, although paragraph 0118 discusses the disparity between the sub-aperture images represented by the difference in the PSFs, and paragraph 0125 discusses using the PSFs for image corrections such as deblurring, El-Yamany does not specifically disclose using the PSFs to derive an optimization code.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, McCloskey discloses and a second step of deriving an optimization code on the basis of the obtained PSF of each sub-aperture image (see paragraph 0033, where PSFs are determined for a moving image subject for each position/image of the subject; see paragraph 0034, where an optimization code is derived based on the determined PSFs and then applied by modulating the light integrated by the image sensor according to the determined PSFs).
El-Yamany and McCloskey are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to motion deblurring of image data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of McCloskey into El-Yamany because doing so allows for improved image deblurring by applying the determined PSFs to the images acquired via the optimization code (see McCloskey paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 5, El-Yamany in view of McCloskey discloses a computer-readable recording medium having a program recorded thereon, the program causing a computer to execute the deblurring method according to claim 1 (see El-Yamany claim 15).
Regarding claim 6, El-Yamany discloses a computing device comprising: a memory configured to record a program for deblurring a motion in a light field image (see claim 15); and a processor configured to execute the program, wherein the program executed by the processor (see claim 15 and paragraph 0048).
The remainder of claim 6 recites limitations identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, El-Yamany in view of McCloskey discloses claim 6 as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over El-Yamany (U.S. Publ. US-2025/0168522-A1) in view of McCloskey (U.S. Publ. US-2012/0069225-A1 ), and further in view of Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter referred to as “AAPA”).
Regarding claim 2, El-Yamany in view of McCloskey fails to disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, AAPA discloses wherein the first step includes expressing a disparity δ between the sub-aperture images as shown in Equation 1 below.
δ
=
-
f
tan
θ
+
f
h
W
(see paragraphs 0036-0039 of the originally filed specification, where the equation is stated to be known in the prior art).
El-Yamany and AAPA are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to motion deblurring of image data. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of AAPA into El-Yamany and McCloskey because doing so allows for motion blur or PSFs for each sub-aperture image to be inferred (see paragraph 0040 of the originally filed specification).
Regarding claim 7, El-Yamany in view of McCloskey and AAPA discloses claim 7 as applied to claim 2 above.
Examiner Note
The examiner notes that the prior art fails to disclose or reasonably suggest the limitations of claims 3-4 and 8-9 under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. Thus, once all of the above claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 101 are resolved, claims 3-4 and 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The examiner notes that the Korean Office Action for KR10-2023-0018106, dated 03/05/2024, states that Hahne et al. ("Baseline and Triangulation Geometry in a Standard Plenoptic Camera", International Journal of Computer Vision paper, 20 January 2021) discloses claims 3-4 and 8-9. However, after careful consideration, the examiner argues that Hahne’s disclosure is not sufficient to reasonably disclose or suggest claims 3-4 and 8-9 under U.S. law, specifically 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667