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 .
Comments
The Amendment – After Non-Final Rejection filed on January 21, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-6, 10, 11, 15, 19, 20 and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 line 3: “a convolution parameter” should read -- the convolution parameter --
Claim 4 line 4: “an illumination code matrix” should read -- the illumination code matrix --
Claim 4 line 4: “a convolution layer” should read -- the convolution layer --
Claim 4 line 5: “a plurality of fully connected layers” should read -- the plurality of fully connected layers –
Claim 5 line 5: “the image blocks” should read -- the plurality of image blocks --
Claim 6 line 2: “an initial processing model” should read -- the initial processing model --
Claim 6 line 4: “a bright image” should read -- the bright image --
Claim 10 line 3: “an illumination feature” should read -- the illumination feature --
Claim 10 line 4: “a target image feature” should read -- the target image feature --
Claim 10 line 5: “a target bright image” should read -- the target bright image --
Claim 10 line 9: “an illumination code matrix” should read -- the illumination code matrix --
Claim 11 lines 1-2: “an original low-light image” should read -- the low-light image --
Claim 15 line 2, line 4, and line 5: “the image blocks” should read -- the plurality of image blocks --
Claim 19 line 4: “an illumination feature” should read -- the illumination feature --
Claim 19 line 5: “a target image feature” should read -- the target image feature --
Claim 19 lines 5-6: “a target bright image” should read -- the target bright image --
Claim 19 line 9: “an illumination code matrix” should read -- the illumination code matrix --
Claim 20 line 2: “a pre-trained image processing model” should read – the pre-trained image processing model –
Claim 23 lines 1-2: “a pre-trained image processing model” should read – the pre-trained image processing model --
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 1-6, 10, 11, 13-16, 18-23 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 1 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 3, line 8, and line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment. Claims 2-6, 10, 11, 13-16, and 18 depend upon claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in line 5, and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to which image the low-light sample image is referring to from the plurality of low-light sample images, as recited in lines 3-4.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 1 above, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to claim 2 above, it is unclear as to which image from the plurality of low-light sample images, the low-light sample image is referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to claim 2 above, it is unclear as to which image from the plurality of low-light sample images, the low-light sample image is referring to.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the convolution parameters” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in line 1, lines 3-4, line 5, and line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to claim 2 above, it is unclear as to which image from the plurality of low-light sample images, the low-light sample image is referring to.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 5, line 10, and line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment. Claims 19-21 depend upon claim 8.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 8, line 13, and line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such. Affirmation of this is required by the appropriate amendment. Claims 22 and 23 depend upon claim 9.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 2, line 3, and line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 1 above, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “determining a convolution kernel of a first convolution layer as 3×3 and a convolution kernel of a second layer as 1×1” in lines 5-6. With respect to a first convolution layer and a second layer, it is unclear if they are part of the convolution layer, as recited in claim 1 line 6, or if they are in fact additional layers of the optical feature extraction network, or if a first convolution layer is the convolution layer.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in lines 2-3, line 7, and line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 8 above, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 8 above, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in line 5, and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 2 above, it is unclear as to which image the low-light sample image is referring to from the plurality of low-light sample images, as recited in lines 3-4.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similar to claim 20 above, it is unclear as to which image from the plurality of low-light sample images, the low-light sample image is referring to.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 2, line 3, and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 9 above, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the image processing model” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 9 above, it appears to be -- the pre-trained image processing model -- and has been treated as such.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the low-light sample image” in line 5, and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. However, and similar to claim 2 above, it is unclear as to which image the low-light sample image is referring to from the plurality of low-light sample images, as recited in lines 3-4.
Appropriate correction is required.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6, 10, 11, 13-16, 18-23, as best understood, would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the closest prior art made of record fails to disclose, teach, and/or suggest, inter alia, a digital image restoration technique, by at least, acquiring an original low-light image to be restored, acquiring a pre-trained image processing model, the pre-trained image processing model comprises an optical feature extraction network and an image feature extraction network, the optical feature extraction network comprises a convolution parameter determined based on an illumination code matrix and a convolution layer, and the image feature extraction network comprises a plurality of fully connected layers, inputting the original low-light image into the pre-trained image processing model, so that the optical feature extraction network in the image processing model extracts an illumination feature from the original low-light image, and the image feature extraction network extracts a target image feature from the original low-light image, and generating a target bright image based on the illumination feature and the target image feature, as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
With respect to claim 17, Applicant has cancelled the claim. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
With respect to claims 1, 8, 9, and 11, Applicant’s arguments (Remarks dated January 21, 2026, page 11) have been fully considered. However, in view of the instant amendment and upon further consideration and search, the previous ground(s) of rejection have been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSE M TORRES whose telephone number is (571)270-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM EST.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at 571-272-2976. 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.
/JOSE M TORRES/Examiner, Art Unit 2664 03/11/2026