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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a first determining module,” “a constructing module,” “a triggering module,” and “a generating module in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims describe a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions. However, the specification does not clearly define the nature of the “computer-readable storage medium"; therefore, the “computer-readable storage medium” can be interpreted to include non-statutory media such as a wireless signal or carrier wave. The Examiner recommends replacing “computer-readable storage medium” with “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims fail to fall within a statutory category of invention. It is directed to the program itself, not a process occurring as a result of executing the program, a machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program nor a manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enables the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality. It’s also clearly not directed to a composition of matter. Therefore, it is non-statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 7-14, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2018/0139377 A1) in view of Park (US 2014/0177974 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang discloses an image processing method, wherein the method comprises: determining, based on a smear region in an image to be processed, a target image from the image to be processed; (Paragraph 0025, obtaining a cropped image from a captured image based on various visual factors) constructing, by taking the target image as an image of a bottom layer, an image pyramid for the target image; (Figure 2 and paragraphs 0026-0027, generation of an image pyramid using the cropped image) wherein the image pyramid includes at least two image layers arranged in an ascending order of resolution from a top layer to the bottom layer (Figure 1, element 140, image pyramid with increasing resolution at lower layers). Zhang does not clearly disclose performing a matching updating process on an image of each layer in the image pyramid in an order from the top layer to the bottom layer, sequentially; wherein the matching updating process comprises: determining an input image of a current layer; determining a patch to be matched on the input image of the current layer; determining, on the input image of the current layer, a target patch corresponding to the patch to be matched based on similarity matching; updating the input image of the current layer based on the target patch to obtain an updated image; wherein the updated image is used for determining an image of a lower layer; and generating, after the matching updating process is completed for the image of each layer in the image pyramid, a target effect image corresponding to the image to be processed based on an updated image corresponding to the image of the bottom layer in the image pyramid. Park discloses performing a matching updating process on an image of each layer in the image pyramid in an order from the top layer to the bottom layer, sequentially; wherein the matching updating process comprises: determining an input image of a current layer; (Paragraph 0054, selection of a recovery object region) determining a patch to be matched on the input image of the current layer; (Paragraph 0050, selection of a patch region) determining, on the input image of the current layer, a target patch corresponding to the patch to be matched based on similarity matching; (Paragraph 0054, selecting the patch region so that it naturally matches adjacent regions) updating the input image of the current layer based on the target patch to obtain an updated image; wherein the updated image is used for determining an image of a lower layer; (Paragraph 0055, inpainting based on the recovery object region and patch region that can be enlarged for a higher resolution level) and generating, after the matching updating process is completed for the image of each layer in the image pyramid, a target effect image corresponding to the image to be processed based on an updated image corresponding to the image of the bottom layer in the image pyramid (Paragraph 0080, recovering an image from the image pyramid after completion of the inpainting in each layer). Park’s technique of inpainting layers of an image pyramid for recovery of an image would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art to be applicable to the cropping of an image based on various visual factors for generating an image pyramid of Zhang and the results would have been predictable in the recovery of an image through inpainting layers of an image pyramid generated based on various visual factors. Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, Park discloses wherein determining the patch to be matched on the input image of the current layer comprises: determining a target pixel point in the input image of the current layer; determining, on the input image of the current layer, the patch to be matched based on the target pixel point; (Paragraph 0045, filling pixels using the selected patch for recovery) and correspondingly, updating the input image of the current layer based on the target patch to obtain the updated image comprises: updating a value of the target pixel point in the input image of the current layer to obtain the updated image based on a value of a pixel point, which corresponds to the target pixel point, in the target patch (Paragraphs 0045 and 0080, inpainting the pixels of the image in the image pyramid for recovery).
Regarding claim 7, Park discloses updating, based on the target patch, pixel values of pixel points in each image region in the input image of the current layer, sequentially, to obtain the updated image (Paragraph 0045, filling pixels using the selected patch for recovery).
Regarding, claim 8, Park discloses wherein determining the input image of the current layer comprises: determining an updated image corresponding to an input image of an upper layer; (Paragraph 0055, inpainting of the image) enlarging, based on a resolution proportional relationship between the image of the current layer and an image of the upper layer in the image pyramid, the updated image to obtain an enlarged image; (Paragraph 0055, enlarging regions during the inpainting) and determining the enlarged image as the input image of the current layer (Paragraph 0062, enlarging the regions towards other layers that are inpainted).
Regarding claims 9 and 11, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 1 is applied.
Regarding claim 10, Zhang discloses a computer-readable storage medium, wherein instructions are stored on the computer-readable storage medium, and the instructions, upon being executed by a terminal device, cause the terminal device to implement the method according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 and paragraphs 0057 and 0062, storage media storing instructions for execution).
Regarding claim 12, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 10 is applied.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 2 is applied.
Regarding claim 19, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 7 is applied.
Regarding claim 20, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 8 is applied.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 15-18 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.
Regarding claim 3, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 2, wherein determining, on the input image of the current layer, the patch to be matched based on the target pixel point comprises: determining, on the input image of the current layer, the patch to be matched with the target pixel point as a center point.
Regarding claim 4, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein determining, on the input image of the current layer, the target patch corresponding to the patch to be matched based on the similarity matching comprises: determining, on the input image of the current layer, an initial patch corresponding to the patch to be matched, and performing an iterative matching process; wherein the iterative matching process comprises: calculating a similarity value between the initial patch and the patch to be matched; taking the initial patch as a starting point, determining an adjacent candidate patch according to a preset propagation mode, sequentially, and calculating a similarity value between the adjacent candidate patch and the patch to be matched until an iteration number reaches a preset maximum iteration number; and determining a patch with a maximum similarity value to the patch to be matched as the target patch corresponding to the patch to be matched.
Regarding claim 6, the prior art does not clearly disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the smear region in the image to be processed is stored in an Alpha channel of the image of each layer in the image pyramid.
Regarding claim 15, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 3 is applied.
Regarding claim 16, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 4 is applied.
Regarding claim 18, similar reasoning as discussed in claim 6 is applied.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lubin et al. (US 6,137,904) discloses pyramid decomposition for smearing and downsampling an image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3417. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, JASON CHAN can be reached at (571)272-3022. 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.
/PHI HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2619