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 .
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, 11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cox US20230375307.
PNG
media_image1.png
318
1286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Cox discloses A method for receiving, at an optical sensor of an optical device [See paragraph 0029 which discusses an optical sensor],
electromagnetic radiation reflected from a scene; [see paragraph 0032 which mentions electromagnetic radiation]
PNG
media_image2.png
161
1285
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
87
1287
media_image3.png
Greyscale
generating, by an image processor, a digital image of the scene from the received infrared radiation [see paragraph 0032 (above) where the infrared light is processed into an electrical signal that can be displayed]; identifying, by the image processor, an object of interest within the digital image of the scene [see paragraph 0032 (above) where the light is obtained from a target ]; altering, by the image processor, the object of interest to add dimensional perspective to the object of interest in the digital image; [see paragraph 0030 where the image can be manipulated to increase visibility]
PNG
media_image4.png
102
1283
media_image4.png
Greyscale
and displaying, on a display of the optical device the digital image of the scene with the object of interest. [see paragraph 0007 where the optical collar displays the image of the object]
Claim 11 is similarly examined to Claim 1
PNG
media_image5.png
122
1297
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 21, Cox discloses an optical device, wherein the optical device is a rifle scope or a spotting scope [see paragraph 0031 which discloses using the optical device with or in place of the scope].
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 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Buharin et al. US 20230316639 (hereinafter “Buharin”, cited in the IDS).
Regarding claim 2, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not explicitly disclose altering the object of interest to add dimensional perspective to the object of interest by varying the brightness level of the object of interest to add a shading effect to the object of interest. However, it is well known to add shading to an object to simulate depth as taught by Buharin.
Buharin discloses generating a virtual shadow to help aid in highlighting the depth of the subject (see paragraph 0114).
PNG
media_image6.png
132
1232
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Cox and Buharin are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Buharin to add shadows to the target image as taught by Buharin. The motivation would therefore be “enhancing depth perception within the image” as discussed in the abstract of Buharin.
Claim 12 is similarly examined to Claim 2
Claims 3, 4 and 6-9 as well as 13, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Buharin, and further view of Han et al. (hereinafter "Han"), from the publication "Virtual out of focus with single image to enhance 3D perception".
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1 and Buharin discloses the invention of claim 2. Cox and Buharin do not explicitly disclose identifying a region of interest adjacent to the object of interest, and changing the brightness level of the region of interest adjacent to the object of interest to add a shadow effect to the region of interest adjacent to the object of interest. However, it is well known that darkening the area around a target object will aid in highlighting the visibility, and clarify the depth of the object as taught by Han.
PNG
media_image7.png
115
997
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Han discloses finding the region of interest adjacent to the object of interest, which in this case is the region behind the subject, and darkening it, which enhances the brightness of the subject (See Section 4: Experimental Results paragraph 2 below and fig. 7)
PNG
media_image8.png
477
1100
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Cox, Buharin, and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Buharin and Han to darken the background as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore to make “the 3D perception enhanced” for the image in focus (see Section 4: Experimental Results paragraph 2 above).
Claim 13 is similarly examined to Claim 3
Regarding claim 4, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not explicitly disclose identifying a second object of interest from the digital image of the scene, and determining that the second object of interest is behind the first object of interest and altering the second object to add dimensional perspective to the object of interest based on the second object of interest behind the first object, and displaying the second object on the display. But it is well known that a second object behind the first object can be a distraction from the first object, therefore altering the second object can more clearly display the depth of the first object as taught by Han.
Han discloses a method where secondary objects of interest are identified to be behind the first object of interest and a blur is applied to simulate the depth, however the object still remains in the picture and is therefore still displayed (see fig. 8).
PNG
media_image9.png
761
467
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Cox and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Han to alter a secondary object in order simulate depth as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be to “to provide a 3D perception” for the image (See conclusion paragraph of Han).
Claim 14 is similarly examined to Claim 4
Regarding claim 6, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not explicitly disclose performing dynamic focus adjustment on the second object of interest to add a blur to the second object of interest, where the blur creates a perception that the second object of interest is out of focus. But it is well known that adding a blur to an image makes it appear out of focus, and can aid in simulating depth as taught by Han.
Han discloses where secondary objects of interest are identified to be behind the first object of interest and a blur is applied to simulate the depth, however the object still remains in the picture (see fig. 8 above)
Cox and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Han to add a blur to a secondary object in order simulate depth as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be “to provide a 3D perception” for the image (See conclusion paragraph of Han).
Claim 16 is similarly examined to Claim 6
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not explicitly disclose increasing the relative brightness of the first object of interest relative to the brightness of the second object of interest. However, it is known that increasing the brightness of an object of interest compared to other objects makes the object of interest more easily visible and makes it appear closer to the viewer as taught by Han.
Han teaches that Illumination compensation can be used on the object of interest based on its surroundings in order to make the object of interest appear clearer and therefore closer to the viewer (see Section 5: Conclusion paragraph 2 below and fig. 8 above)
PNG
media_image10.png
201
437
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Cox and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Han to brighten the object of interest based on the surrounding area as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be “to provide a 3D perception” for the image (See conclusion paragraph of Han).
Claim 17 is similarly examined to Claim 7
Regarding claim 8, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not explicitly disclose identifying a background and blurring the background of the scene to enhance the object of interest. However, it is known that adding a blur to the background can make the unblurred regions, in this case the object of interest, appear more in focus, as taught by Han.
Han teaches that the background can be blurred to take away focus from it, and therefore put more focus on the object of interest (see Section 5: Conclusion paragraph 2 and fig. 7 above)
Cox and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Han to blur the background as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be so that “It keeps the subject in a sharp focus” (See last line of Experimental Results, paragraph one, of Han).
Claim 18 is similarly examined to Claim 8
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not explicitly disclose enhancing the focus of the object of interest. However, it would be obvious to enhance the focus object of interest as taught in Han.
PNG
media_image11.png
148
444
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Han discloses Using depth mapping in order to enhance the focus of the subject (See fig. 7 and Section 3: 3D Perception Enhancement, paragraph 3 below)
Cox and Han are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Han to enhance the object of interest as taught in Han. The motivation to combine would therefore be so that it “It keeps the subject in a sharp focus” (See last line of Experimental Results, paragraph one, of Han).
Claim 19 is similarly examined to Claim 9
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Han, and further in view of Lee, US 20180100721.
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1 and Han discloses the invention of claim 4. Cox and Han do not explicitly disclose accentuating a boundary between the first object of interest and the second object of interest using edge detection. However, it is known that edge enhancement is a commonly used procedure used to differentiate a subject from its surroundings.
PNG
media_image12.png
310
1121
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Lee discloses using a high pass filter for edge enhancement to boost the pixel data for its thermal rifle scope (see paragraph 0054 of Lee)
Cox, Han and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible and the depth of the object clearer.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox, Han and Lee to enhance the edges of the object of interest as taught in Lee. The motivation would therefore be to involve “adjusting for artifacts and correcting for degradations in image quality” (See paragraph 0039 of Lee).
Claim 15 is similarly examined to Claim 5
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox in view of Chen US 20210034901.
Regarding claim 10, as discussed above Cox discloses the invention of claim 1. Cox does not disclose identifying the background of a scene or isolating the background and flatting the background to enhance the object of interest. However, it is known that creating a mask of the background can aid in differentiating the object of interest, therefore it can be used to enhance the object of interest.
PNG
media_image13.png
463
580
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Chen discloses isolating moving targets using an IR image, and flattens the background to increase the contrast between the target and the surroundings (see figure 5 of Chen)
Cox and Chen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of enhancing an image to make an object of interest more visible using IR.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Cox and Chen to flatten the background to isolate the object of interest. The motivation would therefore be to “correct detection and segmentation of the moving object” (See paragraph 0003 of Chen).
Claim 20 is similarly examined to Claim 10
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see the attached 892 notice of references cited.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANUSHA KASHYAPA whose telephone number is (571)272-8766. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
/ANUSHA KASHYAPA/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669