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 .
The Reply filed 20 May 2026 included replacement drawings and an amended title that overcome the objections thereto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 20 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Nadernejad does not disclose “multiple percentiles values corresponding to different percentages, nor does it disclose coordinated control of multiple filter coefficients based on such multiple statistic inputs”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see previous paragraph) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In further detail, the claims do not refer to “multiple percentiles values corresponding to different percentages” nor does the claim recite “coordinated control of multiple filter coefficients”. Still further, see Nadernejad including Section II and equations 2-4 while noting that maximum and average values are percentiles (e.g. max/100th percentile and 50th percentile, respectively) that are used to control/affect the filter coefficients and are “derived from the input image frames and not directly from pixel values” as best as this indefinite language is understood. See also the 112b rejection below.
The remaining arguments hinge on the “indirect input” based control of the claims versus the supposedly “direct, value-based adjustment of filtering” by Nadernejad. But the term “indirect” input is considered highly indefinite and not supported by the instant specification as filed. Moreover, the broad and indefinite definition of “indirect input” does not distinguish over Nadernejad as further detailed below in the revised rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Contrary to MPEP 2163(II)(A) and 21603.04(I)(B), insufficient supporting disclosure has been identified by Applicant in their 20 May 2026 Reply pointing out where the amended claim language is allegedly supported by the application as filed. Indeed, Applicant cite paragraphs [0034], [0058]-[0063], [0070]-[0082] and [0088]-[0090]. But the instant specification ends at paragraph [0067] such that the majority of cited evidence does not exist. Further, [0058]-[0063] generically describe conventional computer implementation details and [0034] is a description of Figs. 2A-C illustrating the flickering concept.
Moreover, the Examiner could not find any disclosure as filed supporting the amended concepts for the “indirect input” or the “the indirect input being derived from the input image frames and not directly from pixel values of the input image frames or output image frame” as recited in amended independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
Still further, these limitations are considered to be negative limitations in that they define what the claim is not.
Guidance on negative limitations may be found in MPEP 2173.05(i) stating in relevant part that:
The current view of the courts is that there is nothing inherently ambiguous or uncertain about a negative limitation. So long as the boundaries of the patent protection sought are set forth definitely, albeit negatively, the claim complies with the requirements of 35 USC 112, second paragraph … Any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure….Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement
As detailed above, there is insufficient support for the exclusionary proviso (negative limitations) as further detailed above.
In conclusion, the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventors had possession of the subject matter expressed by the claim 1, 8 or 15 claim amendments at the time of the filing of the application.
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 1-20 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.
In general, the claims have been abstracted from the disclosure to such an extent that they have lost clear meaning. In other words, divorcing the claims of nearly all context such as to what the percentiles refer and to what an indirect input may mean results in the claims being highly indefinite and unclear.
In more detail, claim 1 recites “utilizing indirect input including percentiles of the input image frames, the percentiles representing statistical values derived from the input image frames, to control one or more filter coefficients of the adaptive filter, the indirect input being derived from the input image frames and not directly from pixel values of the input image frames or output image frame”.
The term “indirect input” remains unclear despite the recent amendments because it is not understood from the claim language how indirect input differs from direct input. Indeed, the added language that “the indirect input being derived from the input image frames and not directly from pixel values of the input image frames or output image frame” does not make logical sense because input image frames are comprised of pixel values such that deriving “indirect input” from input image frame and not directly from pixel values of the input or output image frames” has no logical meaning. In other words, the claim essentially recites that “indirect input” derived from input image frames (comprised of pixel values) is somehow different than and “not directly from pixel values”.
Claim 1 also recites “controlling, based on the percentiles at different percentages, at least two of the one or more filter coefficients together to provide temporal smoothing for the image output”. What is meant by “percentiles at different percentages” and how does that definitively relate to a filter control scheme based thereon?
Independent claim 8 and 15 are parallel to claim 1 and employ the same indefinite language outlined above.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 recite “wherein the adaptive filter is configured to adapt the one or more filter coefficients based on a frame feature difference between at least two of the input image frames to reduce frame delay” but there is no claimed entity that determines the “frame feature difference”. What is the frame delay and how does it relate to anything else in the claim? In other words, “frame delay” lacks context.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 recite “wherein the indirect input of percentiles to control the one or more filter coefficients avoids direct control of the one or more filter coefficients by a filter input or a filter output of the adaptive filter”. See rejection of claim 1 above re indirect control. It is also not understood what is meant by indirect input of percentiles and how such “indirect input” results in “avoiding” direct control. Also, what does “avoiding” mean? Is some “direct control” permitted or does “avoid” prohibit all “direct control”? Note that “indirect” and “direct” control are also terms lacking clear meaning.
Claims 5, 12 and 19 recite “wherein upon the frame feature difference exceeding a threshold, the IIR filter with a first coefficient value is used to reduce sudden changes in parameters of the conversion function”. Claims 6, 13, and 20 recite “wherein upon the frame feature difference being less than the threshold, the IIR filter with a second coefficient value is used to provide that the parameters change to reduce the frame delay”. Again, there is no claim element that determined a frame feature difference and it is unclear to what this frame feature difference may involve. It is also unclear to recite properties of the IIR filter without having some element actually change or alter the IIR filter.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadernejad {E. Nadernejad, C. Mantel, N. Burini and S. Forchhammer, "Flicker reduction in LED-LCDs with local backlight," 2013 IEEE 15th International Workshop on Multimedia Signal Processing (MMSP), Pula, Italy, 2013, pp. 312-316, doi: 10.1109/MMSP.2013.6659307}.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Nadernejad discloses a computer implemented method {see section III Experiments in which the algorithm was implemented on a computer using software to assess the performance in the method on 8 Full-HD video sequences with Fig. 5 illustrating the results thereof} comprising:
applying an adaptive filter in a conversion function that provides temporal smoothness for image output comprising output image frames, the conversion function being applied to input image frames
{See Section II Flicker Reduction Using IIR Filter (adaptive filter) that reduces flicker artifacts by temporally smoothing the change in the backlight image};
utilizing indirect input including percentiles of the input image frames, the percentiles representing statistical values derived from the input image frames, to control one or more filter coefficients of the adaptive filter, the indirect input being derived from the input image frames and not directly from pixel values of the input image frames or output image frames
{Section II including equations 2-4 while noting that maximum and average values are percentiles (e.g. max or 100th percentile and 50th percentile, respectively) that are used to control/affect the filter coefficients and are “derived from the input image frames and not directly from pixel values” as best as this indefinite language is understood. See also the 112b rejection above}; and
controlling, based on the percentiles at different percentages, at least two of the one or more filter coefficients together to provide temporal smoothing for the image output
{Section II including equations 2-4 that control, based on the percentiles (max, avg) at different percentages including thresholds TH1 and TH2 that are used to shape the transfer function (1) of the IIR filter such that based on the difference between max and avg (equation 4) and the thresholds TH1, TH2 the filter coefficients (e.g. b0, b1, a1, a2.) are controlled to provide temporal smoothing for the video frame output to prevent screen flicker}.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Nadernejad discloses wherein the adaptive filter is configured to adapt the one or more filter coefficients based on a frame feature difference between at least two of the input image frames to reduce frame delay {see section II also discussing reducing backlight lag (frame delay) along with reducing flicker using the adaptive temporal IIR filter including equation (3) which includes a frame feature difference between two input image frames (k and k-1)}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Nadernejad discloses wherein the indirect input of percentiles to control the one or more filter coefficients avoids direct control of the one or more filter coefficients by a filter input or a filter output of the adaptive filter, the filter input comprises at least one of input image frames or parameters of the conversion function, and the filter output comprises filtered parameters of the conversion function or output image frames {as best as can be determined based on the unclear language (see 112(b) rejection), see mapping for claim 1 including section II and the IIR filter control by the same type of percentiles as broadly and indefinitely recited}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Nadernejad discloses wherein the adaptive filter comprises an infinite impulse response (IIR) filter {section II clearly discloses an IIR filter}.
Claims 5-7
Nadernejad discloses (claim 5) wherein upon the frame feature difference exceeding a threshold, the IIR filter with a first coefficient value is used to reduce sudden changes in parameters of the conversion function, (claim 6) wherein upon the frame feature difference being less than the threshold, the IIR filter with a second coefficient value is used to provide that the curve parameters change to reduce the frame delay, and (claim 7) wherein the first coefficient value is less than the second coefficient value, the image output comprises video frames provided to a display device.
{see Section II including equations 2-4 that control, based on the percentiles (max, avg) at different percentages including thresholds TH1 and TH2 that are used to shape the transfer function (1) of the IIR filter such that based on the difference between max and avg (equation 4) and the thresholds TH1, TH2 the filter coefficients (e.g. b0, b1, a1, a2.) are controlled to perform temporal smoothing with the video frames. Further as to claims 5 and 6, filter parameters b0 and b1 correspond to the first and second coefficients that values of which are used to reduce sudden changes in curve parameters (temporally smoothing to reduce flicker) and reduce frame delay depending upon their respective values in comparison with the thresholds TH1 and TH2. Further as to claim 7, the first coefficient value may be less than the second coefficient value depending upon the frame difference and thresholds TH1 and TH2 while noting that the output of the temporally filtered backlight luminance image is used to drive an edge-lit display device displaying processed video frames as per Section III Experiments}.
Claims 8-14; and 15-20
The rejection of method claims 1-7; 1-5, and 6+7 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of non-transitory processor readable medium claims 8-14 and apparatus claims 15-20, respectively while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. For the high-level memory/processor limitations of claims 15-20 and computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claims 8-14 see section III Experiments in which the algorithm was implemented on a computer (with processor) using processor-readable software to assess the performance in the method on 8 Full-HD video sequences with Fig. 5 illustrating the results thereof.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiser {Kiser, Chris, et al. "Real time automated tone mapping system for HDR video." IEEE International Conference on Image Processing. Vol. 134. IEEE Orlando, 2012} discloses an IIR filter with percentiles (Lmax, Lav and Lmin). Equation 1a is an exponential decay of IIR filter expressed in equations 3a-c to reduce flicker by temporally smoothing video frames. See section 3.2 copied below.
.
PNG
media_image1.png
830
1156
media_image1.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights