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 .
Response to Remarks
The Office Action has been made issued in response to amendment filed November 11, 2025. Claims 2-10 and 22-32 are pending. Applicant’s arguments have been carefully and respectfully considered in light of the instant amendment, and are not persuasive. Accordingly, this action has been made FINAL.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC section § 103
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 2-10 and 22-32 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections – Double Patenting
Applicant has not filed a Terminal Disclaimer (TD) therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: one or more processing units in claims 1 and 30. See [p][0038] for e.g. can be implemented as GPUs or CPUs.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 of this title, 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 2-4, 6-8, 10, 22-24, 27-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Pub No.: 20140294299) in view of Aflaki (Pub No.: US20180137610A1) in view of Zhu et al (Pub No.: US20170091586A1).
As to independent claim 2, Kim discloses a processor (system for out-focusing a color image based on a depth image – see [p][0003]), comprising: one or more processing units (330 – see Fig 3) to receive image information for a cluster of pixels (a predetermined region of interest has a bold outline – see [p][0050] and Fig 1), determine a first pixel depth corresponding to a first pixel (a depth of a calculation pixel a depth of a calculation pixel- see [p][0087]), determine a second pixel depth corresponding to a second pixel (depth of a neighboring pixel – see [p][0087]), determine a depth (blur level ) based at least in part on the first pixel depth and the second pixel depth (a difference between a depth value of a calculation pixel and a depth value of a neighboring pixel – see [p][0085]), and apply a sharpening filter to the cluster of pixels (the color value of the ROI may be reflected less on the second boundary, such that the second boundary may be sharper than the first boundary – see [p][0081]); however, Kim does not expressly disclose a threshold depth for the depth calculation and sharpening when the second pixel depth is less than the threshold depth.
Aflaki discloses a system for filtering a depth map including a threshold depth for the depth calculation (see [p][0115]) and sharpening when the second pixel depth is less than the threshold depth (reference to FIG. 6 each combination of an interval of tu<ƒ(T)≤tu+1 and an interval of dv<ƒ(D)≤dv+1 gives a set of filter parameters Cuv for filtering a block of the depth map image, where u denotes the row of the look up table and v denotes the column of the look up table. The texture function ƒ(T) may be representative of the texture property associated with a block of the depth map image, the texture property value being derived from a corresponding block from the at least one texture view as outlined above – see [p][0115-0116]).
Kim & Aflaki are combinable because they are directed to image enhancement. Before the effective filing date of the claims invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the method for processing depth images of JUNG to the method for out-focusing a color image based on a depth image of Kim. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been for using the depth property value for the at least one block of the depth map image and the texture property value for the at least one block of the texture image to select a set of filter parameters from a look up table; and filtering the at least one block of the depth map image with a filter based on the selected set of filter parameters (see [p][0003]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aflaki with KIM to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Note the discussion above; the combination of Aflaki and KIM as a whole does not expressly disclose one or more properties of an image including the cluster of pixels.
Zhu discloses a method for separating objects including one or more properties of an image including the cluster of pixels (a second threshold determination unit configured to determine whether the Manhattan distance is less than a second predetermined threshold and an adjacent pixel clustering unit configured to perform clustering of the first pixel and the second pixel, when it is determined that the Euclidean distance is less than the first predetermined threshold – see [p][0072]).
Kim, Zhu & Aflaki are combinable because they are directed to image enhancement. Before the effective filing date of the claims invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added method for separating objects of Zhu to the method for out-focusing a color image based on a depth image of Kim as modified by Aflaki. The suggestion/motivation would be for separating objects that can accurately separate objects from an image, prevent over-segmentation and insufficient segmentation, and improve the accuracy of image processing (see [p][0004]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Aflaki as modified by KIM with Zhu to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
As to claim 3, Kim teaches the processor, wherein the one or more processing units are further to determine a second pixel color, determine a weight for the second pixel based at least in part on the first pixel depth and the second pixel depth (weight based on a difference between a depth of a calculation pixel and a depth of a neighboring pixel included in a window including the calculation pixel at a center position – see [p][0087]), and determine a modified second pixel color based at least in part on the weight and a first pixel color (a first weight to the color value of the region having the depth value less than the focal length. The second calculator 333 may calculate a color value of a second boundary formed between the ROI and the region having the depth value greater than the focal length, by applying the blur strength and a second weight to the color value of the ROI – see [p][0079]).
As to claim 4, Kim in combination teaches the processor, wherein the weight is proportional to a difference between the first pixel depth and the second pixel depth (the weight to be proportional to a difference between the depth value of the calculation pixel and the depth value of the neighboring pixel – see [p][0088]).
As to claim 6, Kim in combination teaches the processor, wherein the image information includes at least one of pixel depth, pixel location (see [p][0051]), or pixel color .
As to claim 7, Kim does not teach the processor, wherein the one or more processing units are further to receive a stream of image data that includes image information. Aflaki discloses a system for filtering a depth map including wherein the one or more processing units are further to receive a stream of image data that includes image information (video content - see [p][0038]). Therefore, combining Kim & Aflaki would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 2.
As to claim 8, Kim does not teach the processor wherein first pixel depth corresponds to a draw distance for the first pixel within a three-dimensional space (depth image refers to an image representing a distance between an object located in a three-dimensional (3D) space – see [p][0047]).
As to claim 10, Kim does not teach the processor, wherein the processor is comprised in at least one of: a system for performing simulation operations to test or validate autonomous machine applications; a system for rendering graphical output; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system implemented using an edge device; a system for generating or presenting virtual reality (VR) content; a system for generating or presenting augmented reality (AR) content; a system incorporating one or more Virtual Machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; a collaborative content creation platform for 3D assets; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources. Aflaki discloses a system for filtering a depth map including a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources (transfer coded media bitstream from the encoder 720 directly to the sender 740. The coded media bitstream may then be transferred to the sender 740, also referred to as the server, on a need basis – see [p][149]). Therefore, combining Kim & Aflaki would meet the claim limitations for the same reasons as previously discussed in claim 2.
Claims 22-24 and 27-28 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of the claims 2-4 and 6-8 as claims 2-4 and 6-8 are processor claims for the method claimed in claims 22-24 and 27-28.
Claims 30-31 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of the claims 2-3 as claims 2-3 are system claims for the processor claimed in claims 30-31.
Claims 5, 25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Pub No.: 20140294299) in view of Aflaki (Pub No.: US20180137610A1) in view of Zhu et al (Pub No.: US20170091586A1) as applied to claims 2 and 30 further in view of So et al (Translation of KR 10-1852085)
As to claim 5, the combination of Kim, Zhu & Aflaki as a whole does not expressly disclose the processor, wherein the one or more processing units are further to determine a third pixel depth, and remove the third pixel from the cluster of pixels when the third pixel depth exceeds the threshold depth.
So discloses depth information acquisition apparatus including wherein the one or more processing units are further to determine a third pixel depth, and remove the third pixel from the cluster of pixels when the third pixel depth exceeds the threshold depth (see page 7, 8 full paragraph)..
Kim, Zhu, Do & Aflaki are combinable because they are directed to image enhancement. Before the effective filing date of the claims invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the depth information acquisition of Do to the method for out-focusing a color image based on a depth image of Kim as modified by Aflaki and Zhu. The suggestion/motivation for removing distortion from the plurality of image information using the camera parameter maps each of the non-reference image information to a reference image coordinate system (see page 3 last para).
Claim 25 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of the claim 5, as claim 5 is processor claim for the method claimed in claim 25.
Claim 32 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of the claim 5, as claim 5 is processor claim for the system claimed in claim 32.
Claims 9 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KIM et al (Pub No.: 20140294299) in view of Aflaki (Pub No.: US20180137610A1) in view of Zhu et al (Pub No.: US20170091586A1) as applied to claims 2 and 30 further in view of Jerdev et al (Pub No.: 20070133893)
As to claim 9, Kim in combination of teaches the system, wherein the one or more processing units are further to determine a lateral distance between the first pixel and the second pixel (a pixel of which a color value is to be calculated may be defined as a calculation pixel. The processor 230 may set a window including a calculation pixel in a center – see [p][0062]) however, none of the cited references expressly disclose is the lateral distance is less than a lateral threshold distance.
Jerdev discloses a method for reducing noise the lateral distance is less than a lateral threshold distance (see [p][0007]).
Kim, Zhu, Jerdev & Aflaki are combinable because they are directed to image enhancement. Before the effective filing date of the claims invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have added the method for reducing noise of Jerdev to the method for out-focusing a color image based on a depth image of Kim as modified by Zhu & Aflaki. The suggestion/motivation would be to reduce noise in the image (see [p][0001])..
Claim 29 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of the claim 5, as claim 9 is processor claim for the method claimed in claim 29.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-3, 6 and 9 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11823355 . The conflicting claims are not identical because Patent claim 1 recites threshold lateral not recited by instant claims. However, the conflicting claims are not patentably distinct from each other because:
· Claims 2-3,6, 9 and 1-2, 6 recite common subject matter;
· Whereby instant claim 2, which recites the open ended transitional phrase “comprising”, does not preclude the additional elements recited by claim 1, and
· Whereby the elements of instant claim 2-3,6 and 9 are fully anticipated by patent claim 1-2 and 6 and anticipation is “the ultimate or epitome of obviousness” (In re Kalm, 154 USPQ 10 (CCPA 1967), also In re Dailey, 178 USPQ 293 (CCPA 1973) and In re Pearson, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974)).
Instant claims
US Patent No.: 11823355
2) A processor, comprising:
1)A computer-implemented method, comprising:
one or more processing units to receive image information for a cluster of pixels, determine a first pixel depth corresponding to a first pixel,
determining a first pixel depth corresponding to a first pixel;
determine a second pixel depth corresponding to a second pixel, determine a threshold depth based at least in part on the first pixel depth and the second pixel depth,
determining a second pixel, the second pixel being within a threshold lateral distance of the first pixel and corresponding to a second pixel depth less than a threshold depth;
and apply a sharpening filter to the cluster of pixels when the second pixel depth is less than the threshold depth.
3) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: determining an adjusted second pixel color, based at least in part on the second pixel color, the weight, and the first pixel color.
9) The processor of claim 2, wherein the one or more processing units are further to determine a lateral distance between the first pixel and the second pixel is less than a lateral threshold distance.
determining, based at least on the second pixel being within the threshold lateral distance of the first pixel and the second pixel depth being less than the threshold depth, a weight corresponding to the second pixel, the weight being based, at least in part, on a difference between the first pixel depth and the second pixel depth and one or more parameters of an image including the first pixel and the second pixel; and adjusting a first pixel color, based at least in part on the weight and a second pixel color.
2) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: applying a sharpening filter to the first pixel and the second pixel.
7) The processor of claim 2, wherein the one or more processing units are further to receive a stream of image data that includes image information.
6) The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a stream of image data; and selecting, from the stream, an image frame.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRAE S ALLISON whose telephone number is (571)270-1052. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-5pm EST.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns, can be reached on (571) 272-9752. 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 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRAE S ALLISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
November 29, 2025