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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant did not provide any arguments against the previous rejections and therefore those rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-24, 26-27, 31-34, 36-37 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,189 in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0249090 A1) hereinafter referenced as Nakagawa.
Regarding claims 21 and 31, claim 1 of ‘189 teaches all the limitations of instant claims 21 and 31 except that a blur degree for the part of the acquired image is determined. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Nakagawa.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakagawa discloses determine, under control of the processor, a blur degree for the part of the acquired image (S14; fig.3).
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image wherein a blur degree is determined for blurring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Claim 1 of ‘189 by applying the technique of Nakagawa to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the bokeh effect.
Regarding claims 22 and 32, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31), however, claim 1 of ‘189 fails to disclose a subject area and a background area are determined from the obtained image. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Nakagawa.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakagawa discloses wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to: determine a subject image area (S11; fig. 3) and a background area (S13; fig. 3) from the obtained image.
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by identifying a subject area and a background area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed image segmentation with subject and background segmentation to achieve the predictable result of a bokeh image.
Regarding claims 23 and 33, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 22 and 32), however, claim 1 of ‘189 fails to disclose how the image segmentation is performed. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Nakagawa.
In a similar field of endeavor, Nakawaga discloses wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
perform the image segmentation by identifying a subject (41, 42; fig. 1) belonging to a designated subject (Person; fig. 1) for the obtained image, and
distinguish a subject image (S11; fig. 3) and a background image (S13; fig. 3) from the obtained image.
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by identifying a subject area and a background area. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed image segmentation with subject and background segmentation to achieve the predictable result of a bokeh image.
Regarding claims 24 and 34, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 23, 33), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, generate the bokeh image by blurring the part of the acquired image corresponding to the background image, based on the blur degree determined by control of the processor (S16; fig. 3).
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image wherein a blur degree is determined for blurring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Claim 1 of ‘189 by applying the technique of Nakagawa to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the bokeh effect.
Regarding claims 26 and 36, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 23, 33), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
apply an identical blur degree to the background area when generating the bokeh image (S16; fig. 3).
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image wherein a blur degree is determined for blurring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Claim 1 of ‘189 by applying the technique of Nakagawa to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the bokeh effect.
Regarding claims 27 and 37, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 23 and 33), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
determine the blur degree for each area of the acquired image by estimating distance values within the acquired image under the control of the processor (S12; [0032]-[0033], [0053]) and applying a blur degree corresponding to the estimated distance values (S16; fig. 3).
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image wherein a blur degree is determined for blurring. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Claim 1 of ‘189 by applying the technique of Nakagawa to achieve the predictable result of enhancing the bokeh effect.
Claims 25, 35 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,189 in view of Nakagawa further in view of Jung et al. (US 2006/0221197 A1) hereinafter referenced as Jung.
Regarding claims 25 and 35, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 23 and 33), in addition, Nakagawa discloses wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
determine a degree of blur…of the background image by control of the processor (S14; fig.13).
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose determining a processing speed of the background image. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Jung.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jung discloses determining a processing speed of [a task] (Fig. 13a-13b; 1248; The device determines if it has the processing speed to perform a certain task or not).
The combination teaches performing an image transformation from an obtained image to an image with a bokeh effect. Jung teaches determining the processing speed of an image transformation and determining whether or not the device is capable of carrying out that transformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of Jung to achieve the predictable result of saving resources.
Claims 28-29, 38-39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,189 in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0249090 A1) hereinafter referenced as Nakagawa.
Regarding claims 28 and 38, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 23, 33), in addition, claim 2 of ‘189 teaches all the limitations of instant claims 28 and 38.
Regarding claims 29 and 39, claims 1 and 2 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 28 and 38), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the designated subject comprises at least one of a face, a person, an animal, a car, or food ([0031], [0066]).
Claim 1 of ‘189 teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image based on image segmentation. Nakagawa teaches generating a bokeh image by blurring a part of an image based on image segmentation wherein segmentation is done by designating a face or person as the main subject. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Claim 1 of ‘189 by applying the technique of Nakagawa to achieve the predictable result of improving the segmentation of the image.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,022,189 in view of Nakagawa.
Regarding claims 30 and 40, claim 1 of ‘189 and Nakagawa, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claims 21 and 31), in addition, claim 9 of ‘189 teaches all the limitations of instant claims 30 and 40.
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 26 and 36 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.
Regarding claims 26 and 36, they recite “apply[ing] an identical blur degree to the background area when generating the bokeh image”. It is unclear what is meant by “identical blur degree”. Specifically, it is unclear what the applied blur degree is identical to. For the purpose of examination, it is assumed to simply mean that the background is blurred according to the blur degree.
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.
Claim(s) 21-24, 27, 31-34, 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakagawa et al. (US 2018/0249090 A1) hereinafter referenced as Nakagawa.
Regarding claim 21, Nakagawa discloses
An electronic device (11; fig. 1) comprising:
a first camera (21; fig. 1);
a second camera (Instead of distance measuring unit 22 a stereo camera may be used to measure distance; [0029]; fig.1);
a processor (13; fig. 1);
an input module (manipulation unit ([0066]) configured to receive a command to be used by the processor, and
memory storing instructions that (program recording medium; [0092]), when executed by the processor, cause the electronic device to:
obtain an image using either the first camera module or the second camera module ([0028]; Pixel array unit 21 supplies an image to the logic substrate),
perform image segmentation on the obtained image (S11, S13; fig. 3), and
generate a first bokeh image by blurring a part of the obtained image, based on a result of the image segmentation (S16; fig. 3; [0056]), and
determine, under control of the processor, a blur degree for the part of the acquired image (S14; fig.3).
Regarding claim 22, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
determine a subject image area (S11; fig. 3) and a background area (S13; fig. 3) from the obtained image.
Regarding claim 23, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 22), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
perform the image segmentation by identifying a subject (41, 42; fig. 1) belonging to a designated subject (Person; fig. 1) for the obtained image, and
distinguish a subject image (S11; fig. 3) and a background image (S13; fig. 3) from the obtained image.
Regarding claim 24, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 23), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
generate the bokeh image by blurring the part of the acquired image corresponding to the background image based on the blur degree determined by control of the processor (S16; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 26, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 23), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
apply an identical blur degree to the background area when generating the bokeh image (S16; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 27, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 23), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
determine the blur degree for each area of the acquired image by estimating distance values within the acquired image under the control of the processor (S12; [0032]-[0033], [0053]) and applying a blur degree corresponding to the estimated distance values (S16; fig. 3).
Regarding claim 31, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 21. Thus, claim 31 is an inherent variation of claim 21 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 21).
Regarding claim 32, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 22. Thus, claim 32 is an inherent variation of claim 22 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 22).
Regarding claim 33, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 23. Thus, claim 33 is an inherent variation of claim 23 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 23).
Regarding claim 34, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 24. Thus, claim 34 is an inherent variation of claim 24 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 24).
Regarding claim 36, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 26. Thus, claim 36 is an inherent variation of claim 26 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 26).
Regarding claim 37, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 27. Thus, claim 37 is an inherent variation of claim 27 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 27).
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) 25, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Jung et al. (US 2006/0221197 A1) hereinafter referenced as Jung.
Regarding claim 25, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 23), in addition, Nakagawa discloses wherein the instructions further cause the electronic device to:
determine a degree of blur…of the background image by control of the processor (S14; fig.13).
However, the combination fails to explicitly disclose determining a processing speed of the background image. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Jung.
In a similar field of endeavor, Jung discloses determining a processing speed of [a task] (Fig. 13a-13b; 1248; The device determines if it has the processing speed to perform a certain task or not).
The combination teaches performing an image transformation from an obtained image to an image with a bokeh effect. Jung teaches determining the processing speed of an image transformation and determining whether or not the device is capable of carrying out that transformation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of Jung to achieve the predictable result of saving resources.
Regarding claim 35, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 25. Thus, claim 35 is an inherent variation of claim 25 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 25).
Claim(s) 28-29, 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakagawa in view of Official Notice.
Regarding claim 28, Nakagawa discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 23), however, Nakagawa fails to explicitly disclose that the designated subject has been learned or designated in advance based on artificial intelligence. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
Nakagawa teaches recognizing a face and a skeleton. Recognition techniques using learning AI are well-known as evidenced by the fact that Nakagawa uses this type of technology to determine the background. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute Nakagawa’s main subject recognition with an AI based recognition which uses learning to achieve the predictable result of a more accurate subject recognition result.
Regarding claim 29, Nakagawa and Official Notice, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 28), in addition, Nakagawa discloses, wherein the designated subject comprises at least one of a face, a person, an animal, a car, or food ([0031], [0066]).
Regarding claim 38, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 28. Thus, claim 38 is an inherent variation of claim 28 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 28).
Regarding claim 39, it discloses a method for implementing the apparatus of claim 29. Thus, claim 39 is an inherent variation of claim 29 and is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 29).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30 and 40 would be allowable if the obviousness double patenting rejections are overcome and they are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 30 and 40, the prior art of record fails to disclose activating the distance detection sensor in response to identifying that the designated subject is not included in the image and generate a second bokeh image by blurring a part of the obtained image by using the distance values determined based on the distance sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Oi et al. (WO 2022/198525 A1) discloses performing bokeh processing on an image based on depth values (fig. 2).
Kim et al. (US 2020/0051265 A1) discloses generating a bokeh image based on a depth map and blur weight map (figs. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 1/28/2026