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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-11 and claims 22-32 in the reply filed on 5/4/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 1/17/2024 was considered and placed on the file of record by the examiner.
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 4-8, 10, 11, 25-29, 31, 32 are 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.
Dependent claims 5, 7, 26, 28 are rejected based on their dependency.
The following highlighted elements of claims 4, 25 are vague and indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by coloring bands;
“wherein processing the selected bands to produce a color image includes coloring the selected bands by using a fusion color map to produce the color image, the fusion color map being arranged to fuse a plurality of different color models.”
The following highlighted elements of claims 6, 27 are vague and indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by coloring a grayscale image and fusion color map being arranged;
“wherein processing the selected bands to produce a color image includes: generating a grayscale image by performing RGB-to-grayscale conversion on the selected bands; and
coloring the grayscale image by using a fusion color map to produce the color image, the fusion color map being arranged to fuse a plurality of different color models.”
The following highlighted elements of claims 8, 29 are vague and indefinite because it is not clear what is meant by coloring a channel;
“wherein processing the selected bands to produce a color image includes: generating an LMS image by performing an RGB-to-LMS conversion on the selected bands; extracting a channel of the LMS image; and coloring the extracted channel with a color map to produce the color image.”
The claims 10, 11, 31, 32 are vague and indefinite because of lack of antecedent basis “the histogram.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claims 1, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skaff et al. (US 2013/0201342).
Regarding claim 1, Skaff teaches a method comprising: receiving a hyperspectral image of a scene; selecting one or more bands from the hyperspectral image; and processing the selected bands to produce a color image (see claim 6, Skaff discusses three spectral sensitivity curves with peak sensitivities in the long, medium and short wavelength ranges, respectively, to obtain corresponding color values; and constructing at least a portion of a new color image using each of said pixel's respective color values).
Claim 22 is rejected as applied to claim 1 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 8, 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaff et al. (US 2013/0201342) in view of Mandle (US 10,607,527).
Regarding claim 8, Skaff does not expressly disclose wherein processing the selected bands to produce a color image includes: generating an LMS image by performing an RGB-to-LMS conversion on the selected bands; extracting a channel of the LMS image; and coloring the extracted channel with a color map to produce the color image.
However, Mandle teaches wherein processing the selected bands to produce a color image includes: generating an LMS image by performing an RGB-to-LMS conversion on the selected bands; extracting a channel of the LMS image; and coloring the extracted channel with a color map to produce the color image (see col. 33 line 37-col. 34 line 63, Mandle discusses RGB to LMS conversion).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Skaff with Mandle to derive at the invention of claim 8. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform color image transformation.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Skaff in this manner in order to improve color image transformation by performing color space conversion. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Skaff, while the teaching of Mandle continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing color space conversion to properly color transform color features of an image. The Skaff and Mandle systems perform image transformation, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 29 is rejected as applied to claim 8 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Claims 9, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skaff et al. (US 2013/0201342) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2022/0138555).
Regarding claim 9, Skaff does not expressly disclose classifying the color image with a neural network, the neural network including at least one hidden layer that implements at least one of a discrete Chebyshev transform, the discrete Chebyshev transform including one of a one-dimensional Chebyshev transform a two-dimensional Chebyshev transform, and a three-dimensional Chebyshev transform, wherein the neural network further includes one or more layers that are arranged to form a feedforward sub-network, the feedforward sub-network being arranged to classify a set of features that is produced, at least in part, by the at least one hidden layer, the set of features being produced based on the color image.
However, Zhang teaches further comprising: classifying the color image with a neural network, the neural network including at least one hidden layer that implements at least one of a discrete Chebyshev transform, the discrete Chebyshev transform including one of a one-dimensional Chebyshev transform a two-dimensional Chebyshev transform, and a three-dimensional Chebyshev transform (see para. 0023, Zhang discusses Chebyshev parameters implemented in a neural network);
wherein the neural network further includes one or more layers that are arranged to form a feedforward sub-network, the feedforward sub-network being arranged to classify a set of features that is produced, at least in part, by the at least one hidden layer, the set of features being produced based on the color image (see claim 6, para. 0023, Zhang discusses neural network with layers that extracts features from a color image).
Motivation to combine may be gleaned from the prior art considered. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Skaff with Zhang to derive at the invention of claim 9. The result would have been expected, routine, and predictable in order to perform color image transformation and classification.
The determination of obviousness is predicated upon the following: One skilled in the art would have been motivated to modify Skaff in this manner in order to improve color image transformation and classification by performing color space conversion and implementing a neural network with Chebyshev parameters. Furthermore, the prior art collectively includes each element claimed (though not all in the same reference), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements in this manner explained using known engineering design, interface and/or programming techniques, without changing a fundamental operating principle of Skaff, while the teaching of Zhang continues to perform the same function as originally taught prior to being combined, in order to produce the repeatable and predictable result of performing color space conversion to properly transform color features of an image and perform classification. The Skaff and Zhang systems perform image transformation, therefore a person having ordinary skill in the art would have reasonable expectation of success in the combination yielding predictable results. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question.
Claim 30 is rejected as applied to claim 9 as pertaining to a corresponding system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 23, 24 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No prior art was found to claim “wherein processing the selected bands to produce a color image includes: generating an LMS image by performing an RGB-to-LMS conversion on the selected bands; replacing a V-channel of an HSV image with an enhanced L-channel of the LMS image to produce a resultant HSV image, the HSV image being an image of the same scene as the hyperspectral image; and performing an HSV-to-RGB conversion on the resultant HSV image to produce the color image.”
Claims 10, 11, 31, 32 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 112 rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wybie (US 2019/0266976) discusses transforming an image into the RGB color space.
Mandle (US 11,183,097) discusses color transformation.
Peng et al. (US 2020/0250497) discusses a trained neural network model, and determining a category of an object included in a to-be-predicted image.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNY A CESE whose telephone number is (571) 270-1896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 9am – 4pm.
If attempts to reach the primary examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gregory Morse can be reached on (571) 272-3838. 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.
/Kenny A Cese/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights