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 Amendment
The amendment filed May 29th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-13, 15-17, and 19-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant has not provided a substitute specification, and accordingly, the objections to the specification described in the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 2nd, 2026 remain standing.
Response to Arguments
Arguments under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the non-final rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection, as necessitated by the amended claims, do not rely solely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record.
Specification
The title of the invention ("Deblurring Images") is not descriptive. A new title is required
that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
In paragraph 18, "debluring" should read "deblurring".
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)(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.
(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, 3, 11-12, 13, 15, 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nagase et. al (US 20100158402 A1) (Hereinafter, “Nagase”)
With respect to claim 1, Nagase discloses:
An apparatus for deblurring images, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory ([0046]-[0047]; [0051]);
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory ([0046]-[0047]; [0051]) and configured to:
identify, based on a motion analysis of multiple images, a portion of an image that includes a moving object ([0021]; [0049] “The blur detector 2 detects regions of motion blur in the image signal from the image signals d1-d3 output from the blur detector 2 for the plurality of different frames, and outputs a motion blur detection flag bf”; [0052])
identify an edge of the moving object in the portion of the image based on the motion analysis ([0058] “The transition period determiner 13 determines edges expected to have motion blur, based on the results f detected by differentiator 10, and outputs the determined results h to the blur period determiner 14”; [0059])
determine an amount of blur of the edge based on a transition width of the edge (Figs. 24(a)-24(c); [0140]-[0143] wherein amount of blur corresponds to absolute value of |d2-d1| and |d2-d3|, and transition widths of |d2-d1| and |d2-d3| can be seen in Fig. 24(a); [0144] “By this processing, the transition width of edges, which is the source of blur, can be reduced, compared to the case where image signal d2 is used for display without this processing”)
based on the amount of blur of the edge exceeding a blur-width threshold, deblur the portion of the image to generate a deblurred portion of the image ([0082]-[0083]; [0140]-[0141] “if |d2−d1|>|d2−d3|, then d3 is output as the output image signal k; and if |d2−d1|≦|d2−d3|, then d1 is output as the output image signal k (FIG. 24(c)).”)
combine the deblurred portion of the image with other image data to generate a deblurred image (Fig. 24(a)-24(c); [0139]-[0144] “When the conversion control signal j is not in state B or D, (that is, when it is in one of states A, C, and E), then d2 is output as the output image signal k. Thus in state E (the core region in the center of the blur period), image signal d2 is output as k, while in state D (regions other than the core region in the blur period), signal d3 or d1, whichever differs by less from d2, is output as the output image signal k”)
With respect to claim 3, Nagase discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to identify the edge of the moving object, the at least one processor is configured to use an edge-detection technique ([0058]; [0059] “The transition period determiner 13 determines edges expected to have motion blur, based on the results f detected by differentiator 10, and outputs the determined results h to the blur period determiner 14”; [0076])
With respect to claim 11, Nagase discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the other image data comprises image data from the image ([0141]-[0143])
With respect to claim 12, Nagase discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the image comprises a first image and wherein the other image data comprises image data from a second image ([0140]-[0143] “When the conversion control signal j is not in state B or D, (that is, when it is in one of states A, C, and E), then d2 is output as the output image signal k. Thus in state E (the core region in the center of the blur period), image signal d2 is output as k, while in state D (regions other than the core region in the blur period), signal d3 or d1, whichever differs by less from d2, is output as the output image signal k”)
With respect to claims 13 and 15, the claims disclose a method which is functionally parallel to the apparatus of claims 1 and 3. For the reasons outlined above, the apparatus of Nagase is capable of performing the method of claims 13 and 15. Accordingly, the claims are rejected.
With respect to claim 21, Nagase discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the transition width comprises a count of pixels (Figs. 22(a)-23(c); [0127] “The state D counter 31 outputs a count value c2 obtained by counting the pixel clock from the start to the end of state D in the motion blur detection flag bf, as data indicating the width (duration) of state D”; [0133])
With respect to claim 23, the claim recites a method that is functionally parallel to the apparatus of claim 21. For the reasons outlined above, the apparatus of Nagase is capable of performing the method of claim 23. Accordingly, the claim is 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 4-5, 9, 16-17, 22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase in view of Ito et. al (US 20090316009 A1) (Hereinafter, “Ito”)
With respect to claim 4, Nagase teaches the apparatus of claim 3.
Nagase does not explicitly teach the further limitations of claim 4.
However, Ito, in the same field of endeavor of blur correction, teaches:
identify a motion direction associated with the moving object based on the motion analysis ([0096] “The motion vector generation processor 140 generates the motion vector VD as the motion information of the decoded image data DD from the decoded image data DD supplied from the decoding processor 130. The motion vector herein is information representing a position of a moving image between frames and a movement direction of the moving image. The motion vector can be generated by pixel to acquire the motion information of a moving object at a high accuracy level”)
identify the edge based on an angle between the edge and the motion direction ([0137] “If the direction of an edge is approximately perpendicular to the direction of the movement speed, the analysis process of the generated motion blur is easily performed. In summary, the area to be selected has a certain degree of movement speed, and is a target area close to the edge as perpendicular as possible to the direction of the movement speed”; [0208])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagase to include the edge determination means of Ito. Doing so would provide a way to more accurately identify areas of blur, for increased efficiency. The systems readily integrate, as Nagase is already configured to consider the motion of objects generally.
With respect to claim 5, Nagase teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagase does not explicitly teach the further limitations of claim 5.
However, Ito teaches:
wherein the amount of blur of the edge is based on a number of pixels that are based on light reflected from a moving object and light reflected from a background behind the moving object ([0123]-[0124] “The foreground is moving in position from right to left at a constant speed. The bright foreground is overriding the dark background”; [0148] “Several methods are contemplated to determine the motion blur length L”; [0151] “The luminance Bf of the foreground and the luminance Bb of the background in (ii) low-speed shutter image in FIG. 9 are used in equation (7)”; Fig. 9)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagase to include the limitations of background and foreground detection, as taught by Ito. Doing so provides an additional specific means to determine the edge of a moving object, with the advantage of precise object determination. The systems readily integrate, as the methods of Ito provide an additional means to determine an edge that the information collected by Nagase could be reasonably employed to process.
With respect to claim 9, Nagase teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagase does not explicitly teach the further limitations of claim 9.
However, Ito teaches:
wherein the at least one processor is configured to compare the deblurred image with the image to determine a final image ([0187]; [0191] “The subtractor 1643 calculates a difference value between the pixel value of the pixel in the input image data DD and the pixel value of the target pixel converted by the smoothing filter 1642, and then outputs the difference value to the adder 1644. The adder 1644 receives the difference value between the values before and after the operation of the smoothing filter. The adder 1644 also receives the target pixel of the process target frame in the decoded image data DD. The adder 1644 adds to the uncorrected pixel value of the target pixel the difference value between the values before and after the operation of the smoothing filter, and outputs the addition results as a portion of an output image”); and at least one of:
store the final image ([0235]);
display the final image ([0101] “The moving image display output unit 190 outputs to a display device such as a liquid-crystal display (LCD) a moving image that has been motion blur corrected with the jerkiness degradation and the blur degradation reduced by the motion blur correction processor 160. The still image display output unit 180 outputs to the display device such as the LCD the decoded image data DD received from the decoding processor 130 as a still image”)
process the final image;
or transmit the final image.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagase to include the limitations of final image comparison, as taught by Ito. Doing so would have the advantage of additional validation of results to maintain integrity with respect to the original input. The systems readily integrate, as Nagase also compares multiple frames to determine, adaptively, a desired result.
With respect to claims 16-17, the claims recite a method that is functionally parallel to the apparatus of claims 4-5. For the reasons outlined above, the apparatus of Nagase and Ito is capable of performing the method of claims 16-17. Accordingly, the claims are rejected.
With respect to claim 22, Nagase teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagase does not explicitly teach the further limitations of claim 22.
However, Ito teaches:
wherein the transition width comprises a count of pixels that represent at least one of:
both the moving object and a background behind the moving object (Fig. 9; [0124]-[0126]); or
the edge of the moving object, wherein the pixels are counted in a motion direction of the moving object ([0096] “The motion vector generation processor 140 generates the motion vector VD as the motion information of the decoded image data DD from the decoded image data DD supplied from the decoding processor 130. The motion vector herein is information representing a position of a moving image between frames and a movement direction of the moving image. The motion vector can be generated by pixel to acquire the motion information of a moving object at a high accuracy level. The motion vector generation processor 140 of one embodiment of the present invention generates the motion vector by pixel block to reduce the calculation load on the process. The frame image is here divided into a plurality of pixel blocks.”)
With respect to claim 24, the claim recites a method that is functionally parallel to the apparatus of claim 22. For the reasons outlined above, the apparatus of Nagase and Ito is capable of performing the method of claim 24. Accordingly, the claim is rejected.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase and Ito in view of Higaki et. al (US 20050147277 A1) (Hereinafter, “Higaki”)
With respect to claim 10, Nagase and Ito teach the apparatus of claim 9.
Nagase and Ito do not teach the further limitations of claim 10.
However, Higaki, in the same field of endeavor of objection detection, teaches:
wherein the final image is determined based on at least one of:
a comparison of facial landmarks in the image and the deblurred image ([0126] “It is possible to detect humans or moving objects by installing the moving object detection apparatus 1 in moving vehicles such as moving robots, automobiles etc. For example, by applying the present invention to the autonomously moving robots, the robot can detect humans in a crowded area. Furthermore, the present invention can specify each figure of humans. Therefore it is possible to additionally install a face identification process as the post process and then it is possible to chase a particular person or take action for each particular person”)
a comparison of human recognizability in the image and the deblurred image ([0151] “The skin color area determination module 24 a included in the contour detector 24 that composes the moving object detection apparatus 1 judges whether the skin color area in the skin color area image SAt generated in the step S5 is included in the contour detected in the contour detector 24 for the objects and therefore it is possible to determine whether the contour is that of the human or not (the step S14)”; [0025] “Especially, for the case when the moving object is human, the histogram tends to have symmetry shape since the human body is substantially symmetric. Therefore, once the human raise his hand and the peak of the histogram shift from the substantial center of the human, it is possible to determine the object image around the center of the moving object in high precision”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagase and Ito to include the limitations of human recognition, as taught by Higaki. Doing so would have the advantage of better comparing the final image with the deblurred image to determine an adequate result. The systems readily integrate, as the methods of Higaki represent an additional validation step that otherwise does not disrupt the central processing of Nagase and Ito.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase in view of Ollila (US 20240056564 A1) (Hereinafter, “Ollila”)
With respect to claim 7, Nagase teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagase does not explicitly teach the further limitations of claim 7.
However, Ollila, in the same field of endeavor of blur correction, teaches:
wherein, to deblur the portion of the image, the at least one processor is configured to process the portion of the image using a machine-learning model that is trained to deblur images ([0034]-[0035]; [0045] “Thus the EDOF correction may employ at least one of…an artificial neural network (ANN)-based image restoration algorithm”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagase to include the limitations of machine learning, as taught by Ollila. Doing so would offer the advantage of increased efficiency and optimization with time. The systems readily integrate, as machine learning (as claimed at a high-level) is a conventional technique to enhance a variety of image processing algorithms which can be readily implemented to predictable success.
With respect to claim 19, the claim recites a method that is functionally parallel to the apparatus of claim 7. For the reasons outlined above, the apparatus of Nagase and Ollila is capable of performing the method of claim 19. Accordingly, the claim is rejected.
Claims 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nagase in view of Cho et. al (US 20160267629 A1) (Hereinafter, “Cho”)
With respect to claim 8, Nagase teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
Nagase does not explicitly teach the further limitations of claim 8.
However, Cho, in the same field of endeavor of blur correction, teaches:
wherein, to combine the deblurred portion of the image with the other image data, the at least one processor is configured to blend pixels of edges of the deblurred portion of the image with corresponding pixels of the other image data (Fig. 15; [0128] “deblurred results may be combined or stitched together to form a final deblurred image”; [0144] “For example, FIG. 16A shows a diagram 1600 that displays a blending region 1615 between a First region 1610 occupied by a first blur kernel (e.g., blur kernel K1) and a second region 1620 occupied by a second blur kernel (blur kernel K2), wherein the first and second regions 1610, 1620 overlap”; [0145]; [0147])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Nagase to include the limitations of blending, as taught by Cho. Doing so would have the advantage of integrating corrected pixels with the rest of the image more seamlessly. The systems readily integrate, as Cho represents a specific means to further improve the base objective of Nagase.
With respect to claim 20, the claim recites a method that is functionally parallel to the apparatus of claim 8. For the reasons outlined above, the apparatus of Nagase and Cho is capable of performing the method of claim 20. Accordingly, the claim is rejected.
Additional References
Additionally cited references (see attached PTO-892) otherwise not relied upon above
have been made of record in view of the manner in which they evidence the general state of the
art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH WILLIAM BOYAR whose telephone number is 571-272-8392. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM - 6:00 PM EST, Monday - Friday.
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/NOAH W BOYAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2669
/CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights