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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed on 19 November, 2025.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 26 January, 2026 has been entered.
The amendment of claims 1, 3, 8, 10, 12, and 17 has been acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 11, section “Claim Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103”, filed 26 January, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 19 have been fully considered and are persuasive. rejection of claims 1, 2, 10, 11, and 19 have been withdrawn. However, upon further examination, a new rejection has been made under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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 10 is 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.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
The newly amended claim 1 states “determining an atmospheric luminosity according to a grayscale histogram of the dark channel image based on a first point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a non-sky area or a second point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a sky area.”. As written it is not clear to the examiner which point would be used to determine the atmospheric luminosity in an image containing both sky and non-sky area. The claim states that a first point of a histogram is used in response to an image including non-sky area, or a second point of a histogram in response to an image including sky area. In the case of an image containing both sky area and non-sky area there is no indication which point of the histogram would take precedence in being used to determine the atmospheric luminosity. However, ¶ 0058 of the applicant’s specification filed 16 August, 2023 does define a logic to the precedence, “According to some example embodiments of the present disclosure, the candidate point for determining the atmospheric luminosity may be defined as a brightest point in a non-sky area, and may include, but are not limited to, a brightest point in the non-sky area when there is a sky area in the image and/or a brightest point in the overall image when there is no sky area in the image.”. This paragraph identifies a precedence of the point to be used in the condition of an image containing both sky and non-sky area that is not represented in the claim limitation. Without this precedence, the examiner is unable to determine the logic of which point is to be used. In an image including non-sky area and including sky area, is the first point to be used, as the image includes non-sky area or is the second point to be used because there is sky area?
Claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale.
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 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication CN111563852A Sun et al (employed using the provided machine translation) in view of Hirayama et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0160039 A1, hereinafter “Hirayama”).
Regarding claim 1, Sun teaches an image processing method, comprising:
determining a dark channel image of an input image (¶ 9: Calculate the dark channel value of the fogged image to obtain the dark channel map.);
determining an atmospheric luminosity according to a grayscale histogram of the dark channel image (¶ 18: Arrange the pixels of the dark channel image in descending order according to the brightness of the dark channel, select the top 0.1% pixel points, and record the coordinates of the corresponding pixel points;)
determining a dehazing image of the input image based on the atmospheric luminosity (¶ 26: In one embodiment, restoring the fogged image to a defogging image specifically includes:; ¶ 0027: The defogging image is calculated according to the defogging formula:;
J
x
=
I
x
-
A
t
(
x
)
+
A
¶ 28: Among them, J(x) is the dehazing image, I(x) is the fogged image, A is the global atmospheric light level, and t(x) is the corrected transmittance.).
Sun does not explicitly teach based on a first point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a non-sky area or a second point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a sky area.
However, Hirayama does teach based on a first point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a non-sky area or a second point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a sky area (¶ 0065: Because the sky area is brighter than objects other than the sky, the larger the sky area is, the higher the ratio of the pixels on the high-brightness-side becomes… Accordingly, when a sky area is detected within the captured image and the color saturation of the sky area is low, a pixel distribution component from the pixels for the sky area may be removed/eliminated from the calculation for determining a presence of fog or mist. That is, when calculating the pixel distribution (and the related ratio and/or threshold) for the fog/mist presence determination, the pixels for the sky area may be ignored to reduce/eliminate potentially undesirable effect from considering them in the calculation.; Examiner’s note: When a sky portion is detected within an image, the pixel values of the sky are removed from the histogram so as to provide an accurate color distribution. This is understood by the examiner to fulfil the determination of a sky portion of an image as well as adjusting the selected point of the histogram in response to this determination.).
Sun and Hirayama are considered to be analogous art as both pertain to dehazing images using image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dark channel prior defogging method based on low complexity MF (as taught by Sun) and the image processing apparatus (as taught by Hirayama) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Hirayama is able emphasize a contrast of the image when the ratio of a number of pixels within a specific brightness range to a total number of pixels in an entire image is greater than a threshold to change the brightness range for calculating the ratio so as to remove unwanted aspects of the image from the brightness calculation (See ¶ 0007).
This motivation for the combination of Sun and Hirayama is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 2, Sun teaches the image processing method according to claim 1.
Additionally, Sun teaches wherein the determining the atmospheric luminosity according to the grayscale histogram of the dark channel image comprises:
obtaining the grayscale histogram of the dark channel image based on counting pixels of the dark channel image (¶ 15: Traverse the entire pixel of the fogged image, calculate the target value of each pixel in the three color channels of RGB, and record the coordinate value and target value of each pixel, the target value is the RGB value of the corresponding pixel The first value in ascending order); and
determining the atmospheric luminosity by performing a grayscale traversal on the grayscale histogram (¶ 47: That is, the pixels of the dark channel image are arranged in descending order according to the brightness of the dark channel, the first 0.1% of the pixels are selected, and the coordinates of the corresponding pixels are recorded; the average value of the light intensity values of the pixels in the fog image is taken as the global Atmospheric light value.; Examiner’s note: The examiner interprets “grayscale traversal” to mean searching for a value from the histogram. As Sun arranges pixels in a specific order and takes the first 0.1% to determine an average value, this is understood to be within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “determining the atmospheric luminosity by performing a grayscale traversal on the grayscale histogram”).
Claims 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chinese Patent Publication CN111563852A Sun et al (employed using the provided machine translation, hereinafter “Sun”) in view of Li et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0122051 A1, hereinafter “Li”)
Regarding claim 10, the Sun and Hirayama combination teaches:
(¶ 9: Calculate the dark channel value of the fogged image to obtain the dark channel map.);
(¶ 10: Estimating the global atmospheric light value of the fogged image;; ¶ 18: Arrange the pixels of the dark channel image in descending order according to the brightness of the dark channel, select the top 0.1% pixel points, and record the coordinates of the corresponding pixel points;) ; and
(¶ 26: In one embodiment, restoring the fogged image to a defogging image specifically includes:; ¶ 0027: The defogging image is calculated according to the defogging formula:;
J
x
=
I
x
-
A
t
(
x
)
+
A
¶ 28: Among them, J(x) is the dehazing image, I(x) is the fogged image, A is the global atmospheric light level, and t(x) is the corrected transmittance.).
Additionally, Hirayama teaches based on a first point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a non-sky area or a second point of the grayscale histogram in response to the input image including a sky area (¶ 0065: Because the sky area is brighter than objects other than the sky, the larger the sky area is, the higher the ratio of the pixels on the high-brightness-side becomes… Accordingly, when a sky area is detected within the captured image and the color saturation of the sky area is low, a pixel distribution component from the pixels for the sky area may be removed/eliminated from the calculation for determining a presence of fog or mist. That is, when calculating the pixel distribution (and the related ratio and/or threshold) for the fog/mist presence determination, the pixels for the sky area may be ignored to reduce/eliminate potentially undesirable effect from considering them in the calculation.; Examiner’s note: When a sky portion is detected within an image, the pixel values of the sky are removed from the histogram so as to provide an accurate color distribution. This is understood by the examiner to fulfil the determination of a sky portion of an image as well as adjusting the selected point of the histogram in response to this determination.).
Sun and Hirayama do not explicitly teach an image processing device, comprising:
a dark channel image determination unit, an atmospheric luminosity determination unit, a dehazing processing unit.
However, Li does teach an image processing device, comprising:
a dark channel image determination unit, an atmospheric luminosity determination unit, a dehazing processing unit (¶ 0106: A “circuit” may be understood as any kind of a logic implementing entity, which may be special purpose circuitry or a processor executing software stored in a memory, firmware, or any combination thereof.).
Sun and Li are considered to be analogous art as both pertain to dehazing images using image processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dark channel prior defogging method based on low complexity MF (as taught by Sun) and the method for image haze removal (as taught by Li) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would be the method of Li uses edge-preserving filters on the image when the medium transmission map is determined, thus reducing contrast of captured objects and correcting color distortion. (See ¶ 12 and 32).
This motivation for the combination of Sun, Hirayama, and Li is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 has been analyzed with regard to respective claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Regarding claim 19, the Sun, Hirayama, and Li combination teaches an electronic apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor (¶ 0106: A “circuit” may be understood as any kind of a logic implementing entity, which may be special purpose circuitry or a processor executing software stored in a memory, firmware, or any combination thereof.);
at least one non-volatile memory configured to store computer executable instructions, wherein the computer executable instructions, based on being executed by the at least one processor (¶ 0109: According to various embodiments, a non-transitory computer readable medium with a program stored thereon for processing an input image to generate a de-hazed image is provided.), cause the at least one processor to perform the image processing method according to claim 1.
Claims 3 – 9 and 12 - 18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hong et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0306569 A1) teaches steps of processing an antibright channel image according to a defogging model to obtain a dark area enhanced image including determining an anti-bright channel adjustment parameter and an anti-bright channel atmospheric light intensity parameter and performing defogging model calculation according to the original image, the anti-bright channel adjustment parameter, the anti-bright channel atmospheric light intensity parameter and the anti-bright channel image to obtain the dark area enhanced image.
Sekine et al (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0249398 A1) teaches an image processing apparatus that calculates an atmospheric transmittance distribution based on an input image and, based on an illumination distribution that has been calculated based on that transmittance distribution, sharpens that input image.
Huang et al (U.S. Patent No. 9177363 B1) teaches a method for restoring image visibility where a transmission map for each pixel is determined, then the transmission map is refined according to edge information. The refined transmission map is gamma corrected and then used to recover scene radiance using the gamma corrected refined transmission map, a color difference value, and the atmospheric light.
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 ANDREW JONES whose telephone number is (703)756-4573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00 EST, off Every Other Friday.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (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 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.
/ANDREW B. JONES/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667