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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/19/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 have been fully considered but are moot in view new ground(s) of rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco et al. (US Patent No. 9846924) in view of Chopra et al. (PGPUB Document No. US 2022/0188991).
Regarding claim 1, Pacheco teaches an apparatus for modifying images, the apparatus comprising:
At least one memory (memory 104 (Pacheco: col.3, line 52-56));
And at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to (processor 103 (Pacheco: col.3, line 52-56)):
Receive an image, the image including a first plurality of pixels representing a first shadow of a first shadow type and a second plurality of pixels representing a second shadow of a second shadow type (receiving images (Pacheco: col.6, line 37-39) and detecting dark pixel regions correspond to a shadow within said image (Pacheco: col.6, line 51-60). Pacheco classifies shadows on foreground objects correspond to the “first shadow” and shadows on background objects correspond the “second shadow” (Pacheco: col.7, line 25-29));
Process the image to detect the first shadow (initialization of a shadow mask (Pacheco: col.7, line 5-9));
And modify the first plurality of pixels of the image to generate an output image, wherein the output image includes the second plurality of pixels representing the second shadow (removing the shadow on the foreground object results in an image with only shadows in the background objects (second shadow) (Pacheco: col.7, line 25-29)).
However, Pacheco does not expressly teach but Chopra teaches,
Wherein the first shadow type is cast by a first type of object, wherein the second shadow type is cast by a second type of object, and wherein the first type of object is different than the second type of object (Chopra teaches the concept of removing unwanted shadows, wherein unwanted shadows correspond to the first shadow type).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pacheco to further remove shadows in the manner taught by Chopra, because this enables an effective method of removing unwanted shadows.
Regarding claim 2, Pacheco teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first shadow type comprises shadows cast by at least one of: a hand of a person operating a handheld device to capture the image; the handheld device used to capture the image; or a head of the person (FIG.3A-C of Pacheco shows a shadow cast by the hand on the person).
Claim(s) 16 and 17 are corresponding method claim(s) of claim(s) 1 and 2. The limitations of claim(s) 16 and 17 are substantially similar to the limitations of claim(s) 1 and 2. Therefore, it has been analyzed and rejected substantially similar to claim(s) 16 and 17.
Claim(s) 5 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco in view of Chopra as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 9430715).
Regarding claim 5, Pacheco does not expressly teach but Wang teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first shadow is detected based on a user input (Wang teaches the providing the user the option to manually select the shadow regions (Wang: col.28, line 51-54)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pacheco such as to provide the option to manually select shadows as taught by Wang, because this provides an added variety of ways for the user to effectively specifying shadows.
Claim 20 is similar in scope to claim 5.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco in view of Chopra as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Mondal et al. (US Patent No. 2023/0260091).
Regarding claim 10, the combined teachings do not expressly teach but Mondal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of pixels of the image are determined using a machine-learning model trained to identify shadows of the first shadow type in images (Mondal teaches the concept of utilizing machine learning to facilitate the detection and removal of shadows (Mondal: 0142)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pacheco such as to utilize machine learning in the manner taught by Mondal, because this enables an effective method of accurately detecting shadows.
Regarding claim 11, the combined teachings do not expressly teach Mondal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of pixels of the image are modified using a machine-learning model trained to remove shadows of the first shadow type from images (“utilizing the machine-learning model comprises determining a shadow intensity of each pixel in the digital image using a shadow map generation neural network” (Mondal: 0134, 0142)).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pacheco such as to utilize machine learning in the manner taught by Mondal, because this enables an effective method of accurately detecting shadows.
Claim(s) 12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacheco in view of Chopra as applied to the claim(s) above, and further in view of Jaafar et al. (US Patent No. 10380803).
Regarding claim 12, Pacheco does not expressly teach but Jaafar teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
Analyze a light source that resulted in the first shadow; and modify, based on analyzing the light source, the image to simulate a change to the light source (analyzing the light source to simulate the interaction of light with objects such as how shadows are cast. Then the shadow cast by the object is removed, which modifies how the light was initially determined to interact with the object (Jaafar: col.16, line )).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of an ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Pacheco such as to apply the concept of removing shadows to the field of mixed reality that involves analyzing the light source. The combination of the teachings is beneficial because remove shadows in the manner taught by Jaafar, because this enables a wider application of shadow removal.
Regarding claim 15, the combined teachings teach the apparatus of claim 12, wherein the image is modified to simulate a change to at least one of: a position of the light source; an intensity of the light source; or a hue of the light source (simulating lights sources at different times of day and/or determining different lights sources to be on and off (Jaafar: col.15, line 18-24)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-9, 13, 14, 18 and 19 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.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David H Chu whose telephone number is (571)272-8079. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:30 - 1:30pm, 3:30-8:30pm.
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, Daniel F Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/DAVID H CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616