DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 20 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 16 of U.S. Patent No.11954765 B2, and claims 1, 9, 15, and 16 of U.S. Patent No.11443461 B2. Although the conflicting claims are similar, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim scope are identical as listed as following.
Application 18/603,334
U.S. Patent No.11443461 B2
For claims 1, 11, and 20:
An image processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing information on at least one random patch; and at least one processor configured to: obtain a first random patch and a second random patch based on the information stored in the memory; and obtain an output image by applying, to a pixel block included in an input image, the first random patch multiplied by a first weight and the second random patch multiplied by a second weight, wherein the first weight is obtained based on a similarity between the pixel block and the first random patch, and the second weight is obtained based on a similarity between the pixel block and the second random patch, and wherein the first weight and the second weight are different according to a type of the pixel block and wherein each of the plurality of random patches comprises a plurality of pseudo random numbers, which are generated by a predetermined initial value and a predetermined mechanism. (or similar limitations)
For claims 1, 9, 15, and 16,
An image processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing information on at least one random patch; and at least one processor configured to: obtain correlations between a pixel block included in an input image and each of a plurality of random patches obtained from the information on the at least one random patch, obtain a first weight on a basis of a correlation between the pixel block and a first random patch, among the plurality of random patches, and obtain a second weight on a basis of a correlation between the pixel block and a second random patch, among the plurality of random patches, multiply the first random patch by the first weight and multiply the second random patch by the second weight, and obtain an output image by applying, to the pixel block, the first random patch multiplied by the first weight and the second random patch multiplied by the second weight, wherein the information on the at least one random patch comprises a plurality of pseudo random numbers to be used for generating one random patch, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to obtain the plurality of random patches by changing an order of the plurality of pseudo random numbers used in the generated one random patch. (or similar limitations)
US Patent 11954765 B2
For claims 1, 9, and 16,
an image processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing information on at least one random patch; and at least one processor configured to: obtain a first random patch and a second random patch based on the information stored in the memory; obtain an output image by applying, to a pixel block included in an input image, the first random patch multiplied by a first weight and the second random patch multiplied by a second weight; apply the first random patch to the pixel block so that a random value at a first position included in the first random patch is added to a first pixel included in the pixel block; and apply the second random patch to the pixel block so that a random value at the first position included in the second random patch is added to the first pixel included in the pixel block, wherein the first weight is obtained based on a correlation between the pixel block and the first random patch, and the second weight is obtained based on a correlation between the pixel block and the second random patch, and wherein the first weight and the second weight are different according to a type of the pixel block. (or similar limitations)
Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if remaining elements perform same functions as before. In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963). Since one of ordinary skilled in the art at the time of invention would have been made obvious to use a different weight factors to perform the similar image processing to enhance pixel data analysis to make better color determination; thus, the claims are similar in scope which requires a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) to overcome this rejection.
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 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 1, 2, 10-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milanfar et al. (US Pub. 20170206632 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US Pub. 20150093015 A1) in further view of Chen (CN-1956568-A) in further view of Joshi (US Pub. 20200211191 A1).
For Applicant’s convenience, an English translated copy of CN-1956568-A is currently being cited by the current office action.
For claims 1, 11, and 20, Milanfar discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
a memory (410) storing information on at least one random patch; and at least one processor configured to:
obtain a first random patch (218a random patches) and a second random patch (218b random patches) based on the information stored in the memory (Figs. 2-3) [0066-68, 0113-116, 0119-121]; and
obtain an output image by applying, to a pixel block included in an input image (Fig. 2-3) [0064-69, 0113-116, 0119-121],
the first random patch and the second random patch to which a first weight and a second weight are respectively applied (Figs. 2-3) [0041-45, 0049-51, 0064-69, 0113-116],
wherein the first weight is obtained based on a similarity between the pixel block and the first random patch (Figs. 2-3, 218a random patches) [0017, 0049], and
the second weight is obtained based on a similarity between the pixel block and the second random patch (Figs. 2-3, 218b random patches) [0017, 0049], and
But Milanfar doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the first weight and the second weight are different according to a type of the pixel block.
However, Liang wherein the first weight and the second weight are different according to a type of the pixel block [0058].the the
Liang also discloses wherein the first weight is obtained based on a similarity between the pixel block and the first random patch [0074-76, 0049], and
the second weight is obtained based on a similarity between the pixel block and the second random patch [0074-76, 0049].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing image analysis use in image system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Milanfar with Liang to ensure proper image quality can be utilized for image enhancement analysis, thus, improving quality.
But Milanfar and Liang don’t explicitly teach wherein each of a plurality of random patches comprises a plurality of pseudo random numbers, which are generated by a predetermined initial value and a predetermined mechanism.
However, Chen discloses wherein each of a plurality of random patches comprises a plurality of pseudo random numbers, which are generated by a predetermined initial value and a predetermined mechanism (Page 3 Paragraphs 2-3, Page 8 Paragraphs 4-5).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing image analysis use in image system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Milanfar and Liang with Chen to allow preset system configurations, thus, improving operational efficiency.
But Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi, doesn’t explicitly discloses the first random patch multiplied by a first weight and the second random patch multiplied by a second weight,
However, Joshi discloses the first random patch multiplied by a first weight and the second random patch multiplied by a second weight [0004, 0030, 0073],
Since, all are analogous arts addressing image analysis use in image system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Milanfar, Liang, and Chen with Joshi to ensure pixel attribute can be used for image enhancement, thus, improving image quality.
Claim 11 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi. Milanfar discloses an image processing method of an image processing apparatus (400) [0064-69, 0113-116, 0119-121]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 20 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi. Liang further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium [0096] that stores computer instructions that allow an image processing apparatus configured for restoring a texture component of an input image to perform operations when the computer instructions are executed through a processor of the image processing apparatus (Fig. 12) [0037, 0040, 0077]. All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 12, Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi, Milanfar discloses an average of the plurality of pseudo random numbers included in each of the plurality of random patches is zero [0017, 0065, 0109].
For claim 10, Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi, Milanfar discloses a display, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to control the display to display the output image [0006].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milanfar et al. (US Pub. 20170206632 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US Pub. 20150093015 A1) in further view of Chen (CN-1956568-A) in further view of Joshi (US Pub. 20200211191 A1) in further view of Sarwer et al. (US Pub. 20180255320 A1).
For claims 4 and 14, Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi, discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi, doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitations taught by Sarwer.
Sarwer discloses (Figs. 5-6) the information on the at least one random patch comprises a plurality of pseudo random numbers to be used for generating one random patch [0057, 0115]; and
the at least one processor is further configured to obtain the plurality of random patches by changing an order of the plurality of pseudo random numbers used in the generated one random patch [0057, 0115].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing image analysis use in image system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Milanfar, Liang, Chen, and Joshi with Sarwer to ensure various image data can be utilized for image enhancement analysis, thus, improving image feature.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milanfar et al. (US Pub. 20170206632 A1) in view of Liang et al. (US Pub. 20150093015 A1) in further view of Chen (CN-1956568-A) in further view of Joshi (US Pub. 20200211191 A1)in further view of Schroers et al. (US Pub. 20190333190 A1).
For claims 9 and 19, Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi , discloses all limitation this claim depends on.
But Milanfar, as modified by Liang, Chen, and Joshi , doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitations taught by Schroers.
Schroers discloses (Figs. 5-6) the output image is a 4K ultra high definition (UHD) image or an 8K UHD image [0019, 0069].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing image analysis use in image system; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Milanfar, Liang, Chen, and Joshi with Schroers to ensure various image data can be utilized for image enhancement analysis, thus, improving image feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5-8, 13, and 15-18 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to all the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
In view of amendment, a new reference has been used for new ground of rejections.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409