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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2024, 11/14/2024, and 02/03/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “wherein the obtaining, using the second AI network, a second image” which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein the obtaining, using the second AI network, the second image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 10 recites “the input second image feature” which Examiner suggests amending to “the second image feature” (deleting “input”). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 4 recites “wherein the obtaining, using the second AI network, a second image” which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein the obtaining, using the second AI network, the second image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Line 6 recites “wherein the image guidance information comprising” which Examiner suggests amending to “wherein the image guidance information comprises”. 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 5-12, 15, and 16 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the respective token" in Lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a respective token. Examiner suggests amending to “a respective token” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the token" in Line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it is unclear as to which token is being referred to. Examiner suggests amending to “the respective token” and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 7 recites the limitations "the first spatial attention module" in Line 8, “the first image feature” in Line 9, “the at least one token” in Lines 10-11, and “the second image feature” in Line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a first spatial attention module, a first image feature, at least one token, and a second image feature. Examiner suggests changing the dependency of claim 7 to claim 3 (instead of claim 1) and amending the limitations “the first image feature” in Line 9 to “a first image feature” and “the second image feature” in Line 13 to “a second image feature” and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claims 8-11 depend on claim 7 and thus are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the at least one scale" in Line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no earlier mention of at least one scale. Examiner suggests amending to “at least one scale” (deleting “the”) and has interpreted the limitation as such.
Claim 15 recites the limitations "the corrected image feature in the column direction" in Line 6 and “the corrected image feature in the row direction” in Line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim as there is no earlier mention of a corrected image feature in the column direction or a corrected image feature in the row direction. Examiner suggests amending the limitations to "a corrected image feature in the column direction" and “a corrected image feature in the row direction”, respectively, and has interpreted the limitations as such.
Claim 16 depends on claim 15 and thus is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ling et al. (CN112419150, see translated version).
With regards to claim 1, Ling et al. discloses a method executed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
obtaining, using a first artificial intelligence (Al) network, a first image and image guidance information by performing image processing, wherein the image guidance information comprises at least one of spatial correlation guidance information and semantic correlation guidance information (Para. 0020 lines 1-3, 0021 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-4, 0031 lines 1-4, 0032 lines 1-4, 0037 lines 1-4, "bilateral upsampling convolution kernel parameters" "spatial weights" "low-resolution image"); and
obtaining, using a second Al network, a second image by performing resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information (Para. 0024 lines 1-2, 0025 lines 1-2, 0044 lines 1-3, 0045 lines 1-4, 0046 lines 1-2, "reconstructed super-resolution image" "use the bilateral upsampling convolution kernel parameters").
With regards to claim 2, Ling et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the spatial correlation guidance information comprises a spatial correlation weight between different spatial positions of the first image (Para. 0021 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-4, 0031 lines 1-4, 0037 lines 1-4, "spatial weights"), and wherein the semantic correlation guidance information comprises at least one of a semantic correlation weight between the different spatial positions of the first image and text content constraints.
With regards to claim 13, Ling et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the second AI network further comprises a correction module, and the method further comprises: performing, by using the correction module, feature correction in at least one of a row direction and a column direction of an image feature corresponding to the first image (Para. 0045 lines 1-4, 0046 lines 1-3, "low-resolution feature map" "super-resolution feature map").
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.
Claim(s) 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ling et al. (CN112419150, see translated version).
With regards to claim 18, Ling et al. discloses an electronic device, comprising: instructions to:
obtain, using a first artificial intelligence (AI) network, a first image and image guidance information by performing image processing based on input information, wherein the image guidance information comprising at least one of spatial correlation guidance information and semantic correlation guidance information (Para. 0020 lines 1-3, 0021 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-4, 0031 lines 1-4, 0032 lines 1-4, 0037 lines 1-4, "bilateral upsampling convolution kernel parameters" "spatial weights" "low-resolution image"); and
obtain, using a second AI network, a second image by performing resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information (Para. 0024 lines 1-2, 0025 lines 1-2, 0044 lines 1-3, 0045 lines 1-4, 0046 lines 1-2, "reconstructed super-resolution image" "use the bilateral upsampling convolution kernel parameters").
Ling et al. does not explicitly teach a memory storing the instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions.
However, Official Notice is taken that the use of a processor and a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute to perform computations, enhancement processing, and complex algorithms on images is well known and expected in the art since it is more practical and efficient to perform the instructions with a processor and a memory storing the instructions than to perform them manually.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the instructions with a processor executing the instructions stored in a memory as is well known in the art since it is more practical and efficient, where instructions are stored in a memory, than to perform them manually.
With regards to claim 19, Ling et al. discloses a method comprising:
obtaining, using a first artificial intelligence (AI) network, based on input information, a first image and image guidance information by performing image processing; wherein the image guidance information comprises at least one of spatial correlation guidance information and semantic correlation guidance information (Para. 0020 lines 1-3, 0021 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-4, 0031 lines 1-4, 0032 lines 1-4, 0037 lines 1-4, "bilateral upsampling convolution kernel parameters" "spatial weights" "low-resolution image"); and
obtaining, using a second AI network, a second image by performing resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information (Para. 0024 lines 1-2, 0025 lines 1-2, 0044 lines 1-3, 0045 lines 1-4, 0046 lines 1-2, "reconstructed super-resolution image" "use the bilateral upsampling convolution kernel parameters").
Ling et al. does not explicitly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor cause the processor to execute the method.
However, Official Notice is taken that the use of a processor and a memory storing instructions for the processor to execute to perform computations, enhancement processing, and complex algorithms on images is well known and expected in the art since it is more practical and efficient to perform the instructions with a processor and a memory storing the instructions than to perform them manually.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the instructions with a processor executing the instructions stored in a memory as is well known in the art since it is more practical and efficient, where instructions are stored in a memory, than to perform them manually.
With regards to claim 20, Ling et al. discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 19, wherein the spatial correlation guidance information comprises a spatial correlation weight between different spatial positions of the first image (Para. 0021 lines 1-3, 0023 lines 1-4, 0031 lines 1-4, 0037 lines 1-4, "spatial weights"); and wherein the semantic correlation guidance information comprises at least one of a semantic correlation weight between different spatial positions of the first image and text content constraints.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 14, and 17 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.
With regards to claim 3, Ling et al. (CN112419150) discloses a spatial weight prediction model to determine spatial weights, however, there is no mention of where the first Al network comprises at least one first spatial attention module, where the spatial correlation guidance information comprises information of at least one stage in the first spatial attention module. Fu et al. (US 2023/0036222) discloses semantic correlation guidance information, however, there is no mention of the semantic correlation guidance information corresponding to at least one token.
With regards to claim 4, Ling et al. (CN112419150) discloses a second AI network to obtain a second image by performing resolution processing and discloses a spatial weight prediction model to determine spatial weights, however, there is no mention of wherein the second Al network comprises at least one second spatial attention module and at least one second semantic attention module and where the obtaining, using the second Al network, a second image, by performing the resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information comprises at least one of: performing, using the at least one second spatial attention module, spatial attention processing on a first image feature based on the spatial correlation guidance information; and performing, using the at least one second semantic attention module, semantic attention processing on a second image feature based on the semantic correlation guidance information. Fu et al. (US 2023/0036222) discloses a second AI network to obtain a second image by performing resolution processing and discloses semantic correlation guidance information, however, there is no mention of wherein the second Al network comprises at least one second spatial attention module and at least one second semantic attention module and where the obtaining, using the second Al network, a second image, by performing the resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information comprises at least one of: performing, using the at least one second spatial attention module, spatial attention processing on a first image feature based on the spatial correlation guidance information; and performing, using the at least one second semantic attention module, semantic attention processing on a second image feature based on the semantic correlation guidance information.
With regards to claim 14, Ling et al. (CN112419150) discloses performing the feature correction to obtain a super-resolution feature map, however, there is no mention of performing, using dilated convolution, the feature correction in the at least one of the row direction and the column direction of the image feature corresponding to the first image.
With regards to claim 17, Ling et al. (CN112419150) discloses performing resolution processing to obtain an image and performing feature correction. However, there is no mention of acquiring a third image, performing resolution processing on the third image to obtain a fourth image, and performing feature correction in a row direction and/or column direction of an image feature corresponding to the fourth image to obtain a fifth image.
Claims 5-12, 15, and 16 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
With regards to claims 5 and 6, they are dependent on claim 4.
With regards to claim 7, Ling et al. (CN112419150) discloses a second AI network to obtain a second image by performing resolution processing and discloses a spatial weight prediction model to determine spatial weights, however, there is no mention of where the second AI network comprises at least one second spatial attention module and at least one second semantic attention module, and wherein the obtaining, using the second AI network, a second image by performing the resolution processing on the first image based on the guidance information comprises at least one of: performing, based on the spatial correlation guidance information that comprises information of at least one stage in the first spatial attention module, spatial attention processing on the first image feature corresponding to the at least one second spatial attention module; fusing the semantic correlation guidance information corresponding to the at least one token; and performing, based on the fused semantic correlation guidance information, semantic attention processing on the second image feature corresponding to the at least one second semantic attention module. Fu et al. (US 2023/0036222) discloses a second AI network to obtain a second image by performing resolution processing and discloses semantic correlation guidance information, however, there is no mention of where the second AI network comprises at least one second spatial attention module and at least one second semantic attention module, and wherein the obtaining, using the second AI network, a second image by performing the resolution processing on the first image based on the guidance information comprises at least one of: performing, based on the spatial correlation guidance information that comprises information of at least one stage in the first spatial attention module, spatial attention processing on the first image feature corresponding to the at least one second spatial attention module; fusing the semantic correlation guidance information corresponding to the at least one token; and performing, based on the fused semantic correlation guidance information, semantic attention processing on the second image feature corresponding to the at least one second semantic attention module.
With regards to claims 8-12, they are dependent on claim 7.
With regards to claims 15 and 16, they are dependent on claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Reference Fu et al. (US 2023/0036222) discloses the concept of obtaining, using a first AI network, a first image and image guidance information by performing image processing, where the image guidance information comprises semantic correlation guidance information, and obtaining, using a second AI network, a second image by performing resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information.
Reference Zhao et al. (US 2019/0035118) discloses the concept of obtaining, using a first AI network, a first image and image guidance information by performing image processing (denoising), and obtaining, using a second AI network, a second image by performing resolution processing on the first image based on the image guidance information.
Applicants are also directed to consider additional pertinent prior art included on the Notice of References Cited (PTOL 892) attached herewith.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights