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 .
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 .
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-19 of prior U.S. Patent No. 9,947,085. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Regarding claim 5, ‘085 discloses the exact same claim in claim 4.
Claim 6 maps directly to claim 5 of ‘085.
Claim 7 maps directly to claim 6 of ‘085.
Claim 8 maps directly to claim 7 of ‘085.
Claim 9 maps directly to claim 8 of ‘085.
Claim 10 maps directly to claim 9 of ‘085.
Claim 11 maps directly to claim 10 of ‘085.
Claim 12 maps directly to claim 11 of ‘085.
Claim 13 maps directly to claim 12 of ‘085.
Claim 14 maps directly to claim 13 of ‘085.
Claim 15 maps directly to claim 14 of ‘085.
Claim 16 maps directly to claim 15 of ‘085.
Claim 17 maps directly to claim 16 of ‘085.
Claim 18 maps directly to claim 17 of ‘085.
Claim 19 maps directly to claim 18 of ‘085.
Claim 20 maps directly to claim 19 of ‘085.
Regarding claim 2, although it is a dependent claim, if it were incorporated into claim 1 it would claim exactly the same subject matter of claim 1 of ‘085. This is likewise true for claims 3-4 which map directly to claims 2-3 of ‘085.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,989,866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a broader recitation of the limitations of ‘866, with all of the limitations of the instant application being present in the more narrowly patented ‘866.
Regarding claim 6, ‘866 discloses a method for improving an image characteristic of a plurality of image frames in a video stream captured by a video camera, the method comprising (claim 1 lines 1-4): determining, by a computing processor, a first improvement to the image characteristic for a first frame of the plurality of image frames (claim 1 lines 16-19); determining, by a computing processor, a changed region of a second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames and an unchanged region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames (claim 1 lines 7-15); determining, by a computing processor, a second improvement to the image characteristic for the changed region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames (claim 1 lines 16-19); applying, by a computing processor, the first improvement to the image characteristic of the unchanged region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames; and applying, by a computing processor, the second improvement to the image characteristic of the changed region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames (claim 1 lines 20-24).
Claims 2-20 are similarly mapped to claims 2-17.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 9,947,085. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a broader recitation of the limitations of ‘085, with all of the limitations of the instant application being present in the more narrowly patented ‘085.
Regarding claim 1, ‘085 discloses A method for improving contrast in a plurality of image frames captured by a video camera, the method comprising (claim 1 lines 1-2): generating, by a computing processor, a first transformation function that improves contrast of a first frame of the plurality of image frames (claim 1 lines 3-8); applying, by a computing processor, the first transformation function to the first frame to improve the contrast of the first frame (claim 1 lines 9-11); determining, by a computing processor, a changed region in a second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames and an unchanged region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames (claim 1 lines 12-17); generating a second transformation function corresponding to the changed region of the second frame (claim 1 lines 18-19); applying the second transformation function to the changed region of the second frame to improve the contrast of the changed region (claim 1 lines 20-22); and applying the first transformation function to the unchanged region of the first frame to improve the contrast of the unchanged region (claim 1 lines 23-25).
Claims 2-20 are similarly mapped to claims 2-19.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,796417. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a broader recitation of the limitations of ‘417.
Regarding claim 1, ‘417 discloses a method for improving contrast in a plurality of image frames captured by a video camera, the method comprising (claim 1 lines 1-2): generating, by a computing processor, a first transformation function that improves contrast of a first frame of the plurality of image frames; applying, by a computing processor, the first transformation function to the first frame to improve the contrast of the first frame (while this is not explicitly disclosed it is well known to use a transformation to carry out an image); determining, by a computing processor, a changed region in a second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames and an unchanged region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames (claim 1 lines 3-8); generating a second transformation function corresponding to the changed region of the second frame (claim 1 lines 9-14); applying the second transformation function to the changed region of the second frame to improve the contrast of the changed region; and applying the first transformation function to the unchanged region of the first frame to improve the contrast of the unchanged region (claim 1 lines 15-18).
Claims 2-20 are similarly mapped to claims 2-10.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,436711. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application is merely a broader recitation of the limitations of ‘711.
Regarding claim 1, ‘417 discloses a method for improving contrast in a plurality of image frames captured by a video camera, the method comprising (claim 1 lines 1-2): generating, by a computing processor, a first transformation function that improves contrast of a first frame of the plurality of image frames (claim 1 lines 14-16); applying, by a computing processor, the first transformation function to the first frame to improve the contrast of the first frame (claim 1 lines 14-16); determining, by a computing processor, a changed region in a second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames and an unchanged region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames (claim 1 lines 3-8); generating a second transformation function corresponding to the changed region of the second frame (claim 1 lines 10-11); applying the second transformation function to the changed region of the second frame to improve the contrast of the changed region; and applying the first transformation function to the unchanged region of the first frame to improve the contrast of the unchanged region (claim 1 lines 12-14).
Claims 2-20 are similarly mapped to claims 2-16.
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 1-4 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the unchanged region of the first frame" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is noted this appears to be a typo and based on the specification should read “the unchanged region of the second frame”, since this has antecedent basis. The unchanged region based on the claim was found in the second frame. Furthermore it is noted that the first transformation has already been applied to the first frame based on lines 5-6 of the claims “applying, by a computing processor, the first transformation function to the first frame to improve the contrast of the first frame”, thus it would make no sense to apply the same transformation again to the first frame [note also that there is no support in the specification for doing so]. Furthermore claims 5-6 agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the second frame is where the 1st transformation function is applied to the unchanged region. For examination purposes the Examiner will assume that the 1st transformation is applied to the unchanged region of the second frame.
Claims 2-4 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhaskaran US 2013/0251281.
Regarding claim 1, Bhaskaran discloses a method (paragraph 0089 and figure 6) for improving contrast in a plurality of image frames captured by a video camera (paragraphs 0016-0017) the method comprising: generating, by a computing processor (paragraphs 0018-0019), a first transformation function that improves contrast of a first frame of the plurality of image frames (paragraph 0022, 0035, 0059, 0078-0079 generate an enhancement map for a first image such as a frame of video for enhancing contrast of foreground and moving objects, and blurring background and non-moving objects); applying, by a computing processor, the first transformation function to the first frame to improve the contrast of the first frame (paragraph 0022, 0035, 0059, and 0078-0079, use the enhancement map to generate the enhanced image from the first image for enhancing contrast of foreground and moving objects and blurring background and non-moving objects); determining, by a computing processor, a changed region in a second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames (0036, for a second image 24 being a later or future frame relative to the first image, determine motion information corresponding to moving/changing objects and their associated pixels in the regions of the image) and an unchanged region of the second frame of the plurality of image frames in relation to the first frame of the plurality of the image frames (paragraph 0036, for a second image 24 being a later or future frame relative to the first image, determine motion information corresponding to non-moving/stationary/non-changing objects and their pixels in their respective regions of the image) ; generating a second transformation function corresponding to the changed region of the second frame (paragraphs 0059 and 0078, generate an enhancement map for the second frame based on the motion information of the first frame and the second/future frame); applying the second transformation function to the changed region of the second frame to improve the contrast of the changed region (paragraph 0078, perform the contrast enhancement on the pixels of the foreground and/or moving objects); and applying the first transformation function to the unchanged region of the first frame to improve the contrast of the unchanged region (paragraph 0059 and 0078-0079, since the unchanged region in the first frame is the same as the unchanged region in the second/future frame, use the enhancement map to generate the enhanced image frame the second frame for enhancing contrast and blurring background and non-moving objects in the second frame).
Claim 6 is similarly analyzed and rejected to claim 1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B STREGE whose telephone number is (571)272-7457. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 (PST).
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 on (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.
/JOHN B STREGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights