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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/05/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information, in regards to the crossed out reference, referred to therein has not been considered.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: “METHOD OF IMAGE PROCESSING VIA UPSCALING AND DOWNSCALING USING CHECKERBOARD SUBPIXEL PATTERNS AND THE CIRCUITRY FOR SUCH A METHOD”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 45, “weighted-averaged” should be “weighted and averaged” or the “weighted average of the “ or “weighted-average of the “.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 14 and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: “weighted-averaged” should be “weighted and averaged” or the “weighted average of the “ or “weighted-average of the”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: “Motion Estimation and Motion Compensation” should be “motion estimation and motion compensation”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-28 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “third resolution” in claims 1 and 15 is used by the claims to mean “third resolution,” while the accepted meaning, in this context, is “second resolution.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The “third resolution” is referenced six times throughout the specification, specifically in paragraphs 4, 5, and 20. Each recitation, merely states that the image goes through the “picture quality processing circuit” and that a third resolution is made. However, this isn’t the case. The picture quality processing unit does not change the resolution of the image. Paragraph 48 of the specification notes that the reason why the picture quality processor processes lower resolution images is to be more economical with processing power, and that the images maintain that low-resolution after the process finishes. As such, the application omits the steps taken by the “picture quality processing circuit” to change the resolution. So, in this context, the “third resolution” is actually a misnomer, as in reality, it is the third image frame that simply maintains the “second resolution”. All dependent, 2-14 and 16-28, claims inherit this issue, and they are similarly rejected. This can be rectified by simply changing the instances of “third resolution” to “second resolution” and “fourth resolution” to “third resolution”.
The term “similarity” in claims 6, 10, 20, and 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similarity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term similarity is not reasonably defined by the specification, claims, or drawings. As such, the BRI of similarity is extremely broad where the similarity between areas can be simply similar colors, patterns, numerical values for the subpixels, or any other potential gauges of similarity that people of ordinary skill in the art could use. As such, the term is left relative and indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2020085781 A1).
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (WO 2020085781 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park.
In regards to claim 1, Park discloses an image processing integrated circuit comprising: a down-scaler circuit converting a first image frame with a first resolution into a second image frame with a second resolution smaller than the first resolution by using a down-scaling operation (Fifth new paragraph of page 4, This paragraph discloses that the signal is downscaled which would imply that there is a first resolution of the image that it then downscaled into a second resolution); a picture quality processing circuit coupled to the down-scaler circuit to receive the second image frame, wherein the picture quality processing circuit performs at least one picture quality processing on the second image frame to generate a third image frame (Fifth new paragraph of page 4, Discloses that image processing is performed upon the image after it is down-scaled); and an up-scaler circuit coupled to the picture quality processing circuit to receive the third image frame, wherein the up-scaler circuit converts the third image frame with a third resolution into a fourth image frame with a fourth resolution greater than the third resolution by using an up-scaling operation (Fifth new paragraph of page 4, The image is then upscaled from the downscaled image and this would implicitly be greater than the downscaled resolution), and the up-scaling operation performed by the up-scaler circuit is symmetrical to the down-scaling operation performed by the down-scaler circuit (Twelfth new paragraph of page 5, Discloses that the upscaling may put the video resolution at the original video resolution which would be symmetrical to the down scaling operation).
In regards to claim 15, it is similar to claim 1, and it is similarly rejected.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2020085781 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Kang et al. (US 20250227309 A1).
In regards to claim 2, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one picture quality processing includes Motion Estimation and Motion Compensation.
However, Kang does disclose wherein the at least one picture quality processing includes Motion Estimation and Motion Compensation (Paragraph 56, Paragraph 56 discloses that motion estimation and motion compensation are both used in a picture quality process).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Park and Kang as it would lead to a predictable increase in the image’s accuracy. Being able to compensate and estimate how the motion is being processed would allow for any picture quality assessments to more accurately predict and improve images that are displaying some kind of motion over multiple frames. This would allow for an increase in the quality of the quality processing methods. As such, this would be prima facie obvious to combine.
In regards to claim 16, it is similar to claim 2, and it is similarly rejected.
Claims 13 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (WO 2020085781 A1), hereinafter referred to as Park, in view of Kim et al. (US 20210217203), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
In regards to claim 13, Park does not explicitly disclose wherein the down-scaler circuit performs a pre-filtering operation on the first image frame before performing the down-scaling operation on the first image frame.
However, Kim does disclose wherein the down-scaler circuit performs a pre-filtering operation on the first image frame before performing the down-scaling operation on the first image frame (Paragraphs 41 and 626-627, Paragraph 41 states that the encoder can perform downscaling operations and paragraphs 626-627 cover that prefiltering operations can occur before the encoder/encoding which would include downscaling operations).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of Park and Kim as it would lead to a predictable increase in the image’s accuracy. Being able to deal with noise issues before the downscaling process would allow for any picture quality assessments to more accurately predict and improve images as that removes details that were not intended to be in the image such as background noise. This would allow for an increase in the quality of the quality processing methods. As such, this would be prima facie obvious to combine.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-12, 14, 17-26, and 28 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. EST.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights