DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: The term SSIM should be spelled out at least for the first time usage. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to non-statutory subject matter "a storage medium". The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media. Transitory signal does not fall within a statutory category since it is clearly not a series of steps or acts to constitute a process, not a mechanical device or combination of mechanical devices to constitute a machine, not a tangible physical article or object which is some form of matter to be a product and constitute a manufacture, and not a composition of two or more substances to constitute a composition of matter.
Note that a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claims are directed to the abstract idea
[an image comparison portion configured to compare a first image with a second image which could be done by human and could also be done by general computer.
wherein the image comparison portion calculates a plurality of pixel SSIM values which are SSIM values of all pixels of the first image and the second image and a representative SSIM value which is an overall SSIM value of the first image and the second image, this is a mathematical concept.
the image comparison portion further determines that the first image and the second image are different images when the representative SSIM value is less than a first threshold value, which could be done with algorithm. This is also mathematical concept (decision rule).
the image comparison portion further identifies one or more count target SSIM values that belong to a specific range below the first threshold value among the plurality of pixel SSIM values when the representative SSIM value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value, nothing more than data collection.
the image comparison portion further adds up a number of pixels for each level of the one or more count target SSIM values in the first image and the second image with a weight according to each level of the one or more count target SSIM values to calculate a weighted sum, mathematical operation/concept.
the image comparison portion further determines that the first image and the second image do not match when the weighted sum exceeds a second threshold value is also mathematical decision rule/concept].
Considered as a whole, no integration into practical application.
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) (i.e apparatus and memory) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 5 is rejected for the similar reasons as claim 1.
None of the dependent claims have a limitation that could amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected.
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, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (Patent No. US 8433143) in view of RAZAZADEH et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0094769).
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Carson teaches an image comparison apparatus comprising an image comparison portion configured to compare a first image with a second image [Col. 8 line 62 – Col. 9 line 65]; wherein the image comparison portion calculates a plurality of pixel SSIM values (window-level similarity measures/SSIM map value) which are SSIM values of all pixels of the first image and the second image and a representative SSIM value (combined) which is an overall SSIM value of the first image and the second image [Col. 10 line 52 – Col. 11 line 3]; the image comparison portion further determines that the first image and the second image are different images when the representative SSIM value is less than a first threshold value [Col. 10 lines 16 – 50]; the image comparison portion further determines that the first image and the second image do not match when the weighted sum exceeds a second threshold value [Col. 11 lines 35-39].
However, Carson doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
RAZAZADEH teaches the image comparison portion further identifies one or more count target SSIM values (low-SSIM subset) that belong to a specific range below the first threshold value among the plurality of pixel SSIM values when the representative SSIM value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value [Para. 91 “the Contrast Map Generation Module 332 generates a contrast map, which is a weighting function that automatically assigns respective values to the pixels of the image X and the image Y according to their importance to the human visual system”]; the image comparison portion further adds up a number of pixels for each level of the one or more count target SSIM values in the first image and the second image with a weight according to each level of the one or more count target SSIM values to calculate a weighted sum (weighted pooling/pooled similarity index) [Para. 91, line 6-12; Para. 117 lines 1-3; and 118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carson to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by RAZAZADEH; because the modification improves on earlier pixel-domain methods to yield an overall similarity score correlated with human perception.
Regarding claim 2, Carson teaches wherein the image comparison portion determines that the first image and the second image do not match (not closely related) when the representative SSIM value (similarity measure) is less than the first threshold value [Col. 10 lines 21-30].
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (Patent No. US 8433143) in view of RAZAZADEH et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0094769) further in view of Holland et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0086466).
Regarding claim 3, Carson teaches wherein the image comparison portion determines that the first image and the second image match when the representative SSIM value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value [Col. 10 lines 20-26, T is a selected threshold value].
However, Carson in view of RAZAZADEH doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Holland teaches a number of pixels corresponding to the one or more count target SSIM values is equal to or less than the second threshold value [Para. 89 “When one or more visual quality metrics for one or more pixel blocks are above or below a threshold for a frame, such may indicate a strong or poor quality of the frame. For example, a higher SSIM may indicate higher quality, so an SSIM threshold may be 0.5, where a lowest SSIM for a pixel in a frame may be compared to the threshold to determine whether to re-encode the frame. Similar thresholds may be used for other visual quality metrics”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carson in view of RAZAZADEH to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Holland; because the modification provides better encoding decision for better visual quality.
Regarding claim 4, RAZAZADEH teaches wherein the image comparison portion calculates the plurality of pixel SSIM values for all pixels of a first original image including the first image and a second original image including the second image [Para. 88].
However, Carson in view of RAZAZADEH doesn’t explicitly teach the claim limitation.
Holland teaches the image comparison portion further extracts, from the first original image and the second original image, images composed of pixels corresponding to values less than a third threshold value among the plurality of pixel SSIM values as the first image and the second image [Para. 86, 90, and 93], and
the image comparison portion further determines that the first original image and the second original image do not match when the image comparison portion determines that the extracted first image and the extracted second image do not match [Para. 89].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carson in view of RAZAZADEH to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Holland; because the modification provides better encoding decision for better visual quality.
Claims 5-7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (Patent No. US 8433143) in view of Holland et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0086466).
Regarding claims 5 and 10, Carson teaches an image comparison apparatus comprising an image comparison portion configured to compare a first image with a second image, wherein the image comparison portion calculates a plurality of pixel SSIM values (window-level similarity measures/SSIM map value) which are SSIM values of all pixels of the first image and the second image and a representative SSIM value (combined) which is an overall SSIM value of the first image and the second image [Col. 10 line 52 – Col. 11 line 3]; the image comparison portion further determines that the first image and the second image are different images when the representative SSIM value is less than a first threshold value [Col. 10 lines 16 – 50].
However, Carson doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Holland teaches the image comparison portion further identifies one or more count target SSIM values that belong to a specific range below the first threshold value among the plurality of pixel SSIM values when the representative SSIM value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value [Col. 61 “The histogram counts across a frame the number of blocks that fall into the different histogram bins”; Para. 67 and 68]; and the image comparison portion further determines that the first image and the second image do not match when a number of pixels corresponding to the one or more count target SSIM values in the first image and the second image exceeds a second threshold value [Para. 61 and Para. 89 “When one or more visual quality metrics for one or more-pixel blocks are above or below a threshold for a frame, such may indicate a strong or poor quality of the frame. For example, a higher SSIM may indicate higher quality, so an SSIM threshold may be 0.5, where a lowest SSIM for a pixel in a frame may be compared to the threshold to determine whether to re-encode the frame”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carson to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Holland; because the modification provides better encoding decision for better visual quality.
Regarding claim 6, Carson teaches wherein the image comparison portion determines that the first image and the second image do not match when the representative SSIM value is less than the first threshold value [Col. 10 lines 21-30].
Regarding claim 7, Carson teaches wherein the image comparison portion determines that the first image and the second image match when the representative SSIM value is equal to or greater than the first threshold value [Col. 10 lines 20-26, T is a selected threshold value].
However, Carson doesn’t explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
Holland teaches a number of pixels corresponding to the one or more count target SSIM values is equal to or less than the second threshold value [Para. 89 “When one or more visual quality metrics for one or more pixel blocks are above or below a threshold for a frame, such may indicate a strong or poor quality of the frame. For example, a higher SSIM may indicate higher quality, so an SSIM threshold may be 0.5, where a lowest SSIM for a pixel in a frame may be compared to the threshold to determine whether to re-encode the frame. Similar thresholds may be used for other visual quality metrics”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carson to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by Holland; because the modification provides better encoding decision for better visual quality.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al. (Patent No. US 8433143) in view of Holland et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0086466) further in view of RAZAZADEH et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0094769).
Regarding claim 8, Holland teaches images composed of pixels corresponding to values less than a third threshold value among the plurality of pixel SSIM values as the first image and the second image [Para. 86, 90, and 93], and the image comparison portion further determines that the first original image and the second original image do not match when the image comparison portion determines that the extracted first image and the extracted second image do not match [Para. 89].
However, Carson in view of Holland does not explicitly teach the rest of claim limitations.
RAZAZADEH teaches the image comparison portion calculates the plurality of pixel SSIM values for all pixels of a first original image including the first image and a second original image including the second image [Para. 88]; the image comparison portion further extracts, from the first original image and the second original image [Para. 88].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Carson in view of Holland to teach the claim limitations, feature as taught by RAZAZADEH; because the modification provides better encoding decision for better visual quality.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU whose telephone number is (571)270-7452. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10 AM-7 PM..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, O’Neal Mistry can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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 800-786-0101 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SOLOMON G BEZUAYEHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666