CTFR 18/485,926 CTFR 92412 DETAILED ACTION Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed on page 6-8 with respect to rejections 35 USC § 102 under have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On page 6, applicant argues that “Matsumoto appears to teach that the intermediate image is generated by reducing the original image. Matsumoto, paras. [0050]-[0051], [0088]. Thus, Matsumoto fails to teach "perform enlargement on the image on which the correction has been performed."”. The office respectfully disagree. The image reduction and applying correction, as illustrated in S102 and S103, are in a whole the correction process on the original process, and such a process as a whole, to gather with S104, reads on the claimed “perform enlargement on the image on which the correction has been performed”. Therefore the argument is not persuasive. The argument on page 7-8 discuss along the same line, and similarly not persuasive . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-6, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsumoto (US20150063726) . Regarding claim 1, Matsumoto teaches an image processing apparatus comprising: one or more memories; and one or more processors, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories ([0116], a computer) are configured to: perform correction on an image( 102, 103 in FIG. 1); and perform enlargement on the image on which the correction has been performed( 104 in FIG. 1) , wherein intensity of the correction in a case where the enlargement will be performed is different from the intensity of the correction in a case where the enlargement will not be performed( FIG. 2; [0029]-[0032], generates a blur signal by combining a pixel value of the pixel in the reduced image and pixel values of multiple pixels surrounding the pixel. The blur signal includes information indicating luminosity of a target pixel and its surroundings) . Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the intensity of the correction in the case where the enlargement will be performed is weaker than the intensity of the correction in the case where the enlargement will not be performed( [0037], a human recognizes that lightness he or she perceives is low when the object is in a bright setting and high when the object is in a dark setting, no matter how the level of the lightness is the same… the correction value determining unit 202 generates a correction value which corresponds to such a visual characteristic). Claims 3-6 recite the image content of the image being processed. However, claim limitations directed to the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are not entitled to patentable weight. In this case, whether the image is skin or no has no effect on the image processing steps, therefore do not limit the scope of the claims. Regarding claim 18, Matsumoto teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising an imaging unit configured to capture an image, wherein t the correction is performed on the image captured by the imaging unit( 101 in FIG. 1). Claims 19 and 20 recite the method and medium in the apparatus of claim 1, and thus also rejected . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto . Regarding claim 7, Matsumoto teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1. Matsumoto does not expressly teach wherein the correction reduces noise. However, official notice is taken that it is conventional in the art to correct luminosity of images to reduce noise. Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the correction method taught by Matsumoto with a well-known method to reduce noise, with motivation to generate less noisy images . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto in view of Sytnik ( US 20210150677) . Regarding 8, Matsumoto teaches The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to: to generate a first enlarged image ( 104 in FIG. 1); and perform second enlargement different from the first enlargement performed on the image on which the correction is performed, to generate a second enlarged image( 105 in FIG. 1). Matsumoto does not expressly teach perform first enlargement using a neural network on the image on which the correction is performed. However, Sytnik teaches teach perform first enlargement using a neural network on the image on which the correction is performed (120 in FIG. 1). Therefore It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Matsumoto and Sytnik, by identifying skin areas as taught by Sytnik, and then applying Matsumoto’s processing on the identified skin area, with motivation “ for selective enhancement of skin features in an image”( Sytnik, Abstract). Regarding 9, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to combine the first enlarged image and the second enlarged image( Matsumoto, 104 and 105 in FIG. 1). Regarding 10, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a composition rate of the first enlarged image in a case where the intensity of the correction is first intensity is larger than the composition rate of the first enlarged image in a case where the intensity of the correction is second intensity greater than the first intensity( Matsumoto,[0037], a human recognizes that lightness he or she perceives is low when the object is in a bright setting and high when the object is in a dark setting, no matter how the level of the lightness is the same… the correction value determining unit 202 generates a correction value which corresponds to such a visual characteristic). Regarding 11, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a composition rate of the first enlarged image in a case where the intensity of the correction is first intensity is smaller than the composition rate of the first enlarged image in a case where the intensity of the correction is second intensity greater than the first intensity( Matsumoto, [0037], a human recognizes that lightness he or she perceives is low when the object is in a bright setting and high when the object is in a dark setting, no matter how the level of the lightness is the same… the correction value determining unit 202 generates a correction value which corresponds to such a visual characteristic). Regarding 12, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to: perform the correction on a partial area of the image, and combine the first and second enlarged images based on an area of the partial area on which the correction is performed( Matsumoto, [0038]-[0040], The second enlarging unit 105 generates, from the correction value for each of the pixels in the intermediate image). Regarding 13, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the one or more processors and the one or more memories are further configured to: perform different correction on a plurality of areas of the image, and combine the first and second enlarged images based on the correction performed on each of the plurality of areas of the image( Matsumoto, [0045], the image correcting unit 106 multiplies a pixel value (X in ) for the original image by a correction value (g) which is gain, and generates a corrected pixel value (X out ) in order to generate a corrected image). Regarding 14, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second enlargement does not use the neural network ( Matsumoto, [0078], a second intermediate image generating unit 601 generates, based on an original image, a second intermediate image having as many pixels as correction values to be outputted by a second intermediate enlarging unit 604 for the original image). Regarding 15, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the second enlargement uses at least any of a nearest neighbor method, a bicubic method, and a bilinear method( Matsumoto, [0041], the second enlarging unit 105 increases the correction value, using bilinear interpolation (linear interpolation)). Regarding 16, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first enlarged image generated by performing the first enlargement on the image is more enhanced in high-frequency signal ( Matsumoto, [0023] the reduced image generating unit 102 generates a reduced image having no aliasing, by low-pass filtering and sub-sampling the original image) than the second enlarged image generated by performing the second enlargement on the image. Regarding 17, Matsumoto in view of Sytnik teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the first enlarged image generated by performing the first enlargement on the image is higher in resolution feeling ( Matsumoto, [0073], the image processing apparatus 100 first refers to pixels of 4×4 and second refers to pixels of 2×2. Hence the image processing apparatus 100 can curb an increase in processing amount and execute intense smoothing) than the second enlarged image generated by performing the second enlargement on the image. Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F. 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, Randolph Vincent can be reached at 571 272 8243. 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. JIANGENG SUN Examiner Art Unit 2661 /Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 2 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 3 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 4 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 5 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 6 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 7 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 8 Art Unit: 2671 Application/Control Number: 18/485,926 Page 9 Art Unit: 2671
Prosecution Insights