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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, and 6-16 are pending in this application.
Interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112(f)
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, line 14 through line 23, and the amendment to the claims, filed27 January 2026, with respect to the interpretation of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(f), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The interpretation of claims 1, 3-4, and 6-14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(f) has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, line 24 through page 8, line 26, and the amendment to the claims, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karras et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0150357A1), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karras et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0150357A1) has been withdrawn.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8, lines 13-26, and the amendment to the claims, filed 27 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 8-10, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8, lines 13-26 that “Claim 1 has been amended to recite, in part, wherein the second enlargement unit does not use a neural network. Applicant submits that independent Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 16 include similar amendments or features. As such, the below analysis will also apply to independent Claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 16. Applicant further submits that Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, and 16 have been amended to include the features of Claims 2 and 5 which the Examiner has indicated as allowable subject matter. As such, Claims 1, 3, 4, and 6-16 are allowable”, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Independent claim 8 and dependent claims 9-10 have not been amended in a similar manner to include the allowable features. Claim 8 has been made independent, however the claim is identical to original claim 8 (which was rejected) except for the “one or more processors”, and dependent claims 9-10, which depend from now independent claim 8, are also identical to original claims 9-10 (which was rejected) except for the “one or more processors”. The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karras et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0150357A1) is therefore proper and is hereby maintained.
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 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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karras et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2021/0150357 A1) (hereafter referred to as “Karras (‘357)”).
With regard to claim 8, Karras (‘357) describes one or more processors which, when executing a program stored in a memory (see Figure 3 and refer for example to paragraphs [0084] and [0085]) function as a correction unit configured to perform correction on an image (refer for example to paragraphs [0054], [0056], [0172], [0184], [0195], [0196], [0197] and [0204], in Karras (‘357) the reducing of artifacts by smoothing the image improves the image quality, which corresponds to applicant’s “performing correction on an image”); a first enlargement unit configured to enlarge the image subjected to the correction performed by the correction unit by using a neural network to produce a first enlarged image (refer for example to paragraphs [0041], [0042], [0044], [0054] and [0056]); a second enlargement unit configured to enlarge the image subjected to the correction performed by the correction unit to produce a second enlarged image, the second enlargement unit being different from the first enlargement unit (refer for example to paragraphs [0042], [0043], [0044], [0054] and [0056]); and a compositing unit configured to perform composition of the first enlarged image and the second enlarged image based on an intensity of the correction (refer for example to paragraphs [0071], [0072] and [0227]); wherein the correction unit performs the correction on a partial area of the image (refer for example to paragraphs [0047] and [0048], where the partial area is the face area).
In regard to claim 9, Karras (‘357) describes wherein the partial area is a face area (refer to paragraphs [0047] and [0048], where the partial area is the face area).
With regard to claim 10, Karras (‘357) describes wherein the partial area is a skin area (refer for example to paragraph [0061], where the partial area is a skin area).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-12 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7 and 13-16 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jose L. Couso whose telephone number is (571) 272-7388. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 5:30am to 1:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached on 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 the Patent Center information webpage on the USPTO website. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. Should you have questions about access to the Patent Center, contact the Patent Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 571-272-4100 or via email at: ebc@uspto.gov .
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.
/JOSE L COUSO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
January 30, 2026