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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application claims priority to JP2021-170887, filed on 10/19/21 and PCT/JP2022/0330208, filed on 9/5/22.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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:
Claim 1:
Image acquisition unit
Calculation unit
Adjustment unit
Output unit
Claim 3
Brightness adjustment unit
Claim 6
Subtraction unit
Claim 8
Quantization unit
Claim 13
Tendency information acquisition unit
Claim 14
Image editing unit
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. It is noted that the structure for these units all appear to be a generic processor as described on page 17-18 of the specification running software. There does not appear to be description of the specific algorithm utilized for any of these units, however.
Claim 1:
Image acquisition unit
Calculation unit
Adjustment unit
Output unit
Claim 3
Brightness adjustment unit
Claim 6
Subtraction unit
Claim 8
Quantization unit
Claim 13
Tendency information acquisition unit
Claim 14
Image editing unit
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 § 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 1-14 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 limitations:
Claim 1:
Image acquisition unit
Calculation unit
Adjustment unit
Output unit
Claim 3
Brightness adjustment unit
Claim 6
Subtraction unit
Claim 8
Quantization unit
Claim 13
Tendency information acquisition unit
Claim 14
Image editing unit
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The corresponding structure is a general purpose computer performing specific computer-implemented functions. The structure for a computer implemented function must include the algorithm needed to transform the general purpose computer or microprocessor disclosed in the specification. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar Corp. v. DirecTV Group, Inc., 523 F.3d 1323, 1340, 86 USPQ2d 1609, 1623 (Fed. Cir. 2008); WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241. MPEP 2181. It is noted that the corresponding structures lack a corresponding algorithm.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-7, 11-13, and 15-16 as best understood are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being anticipated by US 2022/0366532 Vadivel, et al. (hereafter Vadivel)
1. An image processing device that uses a neural network trained based on multiple images to improve image quality of an input image obtained by image capture, wherein the image processing device comprises:
an image acquisition unit that acquires the input image; (Vadivel ¶41 obtains an input image)
a calculation unit that calculates an adjustment value acquired from the input image based on tendency information indicating a tendency in multiple images used to train the neural network; (Vadivel ¶43-44 scaling factor)
an adjustment unit that adjusts the input image based on the adjustment value that has been calculated; and (Vadivel ¶50 adjusts the image)
an output unit that outputs an image which has been adjusted by the adjustment unit and of which an image quality has been improved by the neural network. (Vadivel ¶50 outputs the image)
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected similarly.
2. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the calculation unit calculates, as the adjustment value, a gain adjustment value acquired from the input image. (Vadivel ¶43-44 adjustment value)
3. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit is provided with a brightness adjustment unit that adjusts a brightness of the input image based on the adjustment value, (Vadivel ¶43 black level, which is one way to measure brightness in an image)
and the output unit outputs an image in which a brightness has been adjusted by the brightness adjustment unit and of which the image quality has been improved by the neural network. (Vadivel ¶50 outputs the adjusted image)
4. The image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the brightness adjustment unit adjusts a brightness of the input image by multiplying an adjusted gain with the input image. (Vadivel ¶44 divide by scaling factor K which is equivalent to multiplying by 1/K)
5. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the adjustment unit further comprises a subtraction unit that subtracts a black level of the input image based on the adjustment value that has been calculated, and the output unit outputs an image in which the black level has been subtracted by the subtraction unit and of which the image quality has been improved by the neural network. (Vadivel ¶43 black level subtractor; ¶50 output image)
6. The image processing device according to claim 3, wherein the adjustment unit further comprises a subtraction unit that subtracts a black level of the input image based on the adjustment value that has been calculated, and the subtraction unit subtracts a black level based on the adjustment value calculated by the calculation unit from a brightness-adjusted image in which the brightness has been adjusted by the brightness adjustment unit. (Vadivel ¶43 black level subtractor; ¶50 output image)
11. An image processing system comprising a training device that trains the neural network based on multiple images; and (Vadivel ¶7 multiple images)
an image processing device according to claim 1. (See claim 1)
12. The image processing system according to claim 11, wherein the training device trains the neural network by teacher-based training. (Vadivel ¶13 uses a training set that is paired with ground truth images)
13. The image processing system according to claim 11, wherein the training device comprises a tendency information acquisition unit that acquires the tendency information, and (Vadivel ¶27 obtains information about the images)
an image editing unit that edits images before training based on the acquired tendency information. (Vadivel ¶28 edits images prior to training)
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 7, 9-10, 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Vadivel in view of US 2021/0133943, Lee et al. (hereafter Lee)
Vadivel does not disclose
7. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the tendency information is information regarding an average brightness of multiple images used to train the neural network.
Lee ¶26 uses average values. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Vadivel to use average values as to reduce an illumination difference between consecutive images as taught by Lee.
Vadivel does not disclose
9. The image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the input image is a frame included in moving image data, and the tendency information is generated based on multiple consecutive frames included in the moving image data. (Lee ¶132 video training)
It would have been obvious to modify Vadivel and Lee to use video frames as video is merely a series of individual image frames.
10. The image processing device according to claim 9, wherein a number of frames used for generating the tendency information is determined in accordance with a frame rate of the moving image data. (Note that each individual frame and image is based on the frame rate, for example at a frame rate of 24 frames per second, there would be 24 images per second in video data)
Vadivel does not disclose
14. The image processing system according to claim 13, wherein the tendency information is information regarding variation in an average brightness of multiple images used for training the neural network, and
the image editing unit edits the images before training if the variation in the average brightness in the tendency information is not within a prescribed range.
Lee ¶26 uses average values, ¶169 discloses editing the images if the illumination difference is too great. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Vadivel to edit if the variation in illumination is too great for the purposes of reducing the illumination difference between consecutive frames.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Vadivel and Lee in view of US 2014/0253545, Sullivan et al. (hereafter Sullivan)
Vadivel and Lee do not disclose
8. The image processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a quantization unit that quantizes the input image to a number of tones based on a lookup table (LUT),wherein the quantization unit quantizes the input image by using, among multiple LUTs, an LUT in accordance with the adjustment value calculated by the calculation unit.
Sullivan ¶28 discloses the use of look up tables for image enhancement. It would have been obvious to modify the system of Vadivel and Lee to include the use of look up tables for the purposes of enabling brighter, higher contrast, and more colorful image displays as taught by Sullivan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ming Shui whose telephone number is (303)297-4247. The examiner can normally be reached on 7-5 Pacific Time, M-Th.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Greg Morse can be reached on 571-272-3838. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Ming Shui/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663