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 .
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.
The following title is suggested: IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM THAT ESTIMATES A PARAMETER FOR CORRECTING A CAPTURED IMAGE
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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 14 is directed to a program per se. A program per se, 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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MERTENS (US 2017/0127069A1) in view of CHEN (US2015/0195441A1).
Regarding claim 1, MERTENS teaches:
[Claim 1] An image processing apparatus comprising
a processing unit (MERTENS: par. 107) that,
estimates a parameter for correction of the captured image, on a basis of a relationship between the captured image and an intermediate corrected image obtained by correction for at least one first unit (MERTENS: fig. 7 see also pars. 58-62; par. 105 (lines 1-18); Tone mapping has been interpreted as correction).
MERTENS doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art CHEN teaches:
corrects a captured image for each first unit (CHEN: par. 45) and obtained by correction for each first unit (CHEN: par. 45), and
corrects the captured image, for each second unit larger than each first unit, using the estimated parameter (CHEN: fig. 3, 2033 see also par. 43 ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine corrects a captured image for each first unit and obtained by correction for each first unit and corrects the captured image, for each second unit larger than each first unit, using the estimated parameter as shown in CHEN with MERTENS for the benefit of addressing the disadvantages in the prior art that colors, brightness, and contrast of an image obtained from Raw data are severely distorted [8].
Regarding claim 2, MERTENS as modified by CHEN (with the same motivation from claim 1) further teaches:
[Claim 2] The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein
each first unit is a pixel (CHEN: par. 45),
each second unit is an image frame (CHEN: par. 45), and
the parameter includes a parameter for correction of an entire region of the captured image (CHEN: pars. 77-78).
Claim 13 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 13 further requires a different preamble also taught by MERTENS:
[Claim 13] An image processing method comprising (MERTENS: see Abstract and par. 91 ): by an image processing apparatus (MERTENS: par. 54).
Claim 14 is analogous to claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 14 further requires a different preamble also taught by MERTENS:
[Claim 14] A program for causing a computer to function as a processing unit (MERTENS: par. 109).
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MERTENS in view of CHEN in view of TANIZAWA (JP 2006301675 A).
Regarding claim 6, the previous combination of MERTENS and CHEN don’t teach however the analogous prior art TANIZAWA teaches:
[Claim 6] The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the processing unit corrects the captured image for each second unit by image editing software performing a correction process using the parameter (TANIZAWA: pg. 4 lines 41-57; pg. 6 lines 58-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the processing unit corrects the captured image for each second unit by image editing software performing a correction process using the parameter as shown in TANIZAWA with the previous combination for the benefit of performing appropriate image processing even when the composition of the scene changes [pg. 2 lines 20-22].
Regarding claim 7, MERTENS in view of CHEN as modified by TANIZAWA (with the same motivation from claim 6) further teaches:
[Claim 7] The image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the parameter includes a parameter related to a tone curve (TANIZAWA: pg. 6 lines 58-64).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MERTENS in view of CHEN in view of FUCHIKAMI (US2010/0157093A1).
Regarding claim 11, the previous combination of MERTENS and CHEN don’t teach however the analogous prior art FUCHIKAMI teaches:
[Claim 11] The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit performs correction related to color or brightness of the captured image (FUCHIKAMI: par. 98) .
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein the processing unit performs correction related to color or brightness of the captured image as shown in FUCHIKAMI with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art regarding high-speed image capturing. That is, the frame rate at which image frames are captured may be higher than the frequency of fluorescent flicker. In such a case, the fluctuations in brightness caused by fluorescent flicker affect the image frames captured, without being convolved. For this reason, if the gain adjustment is applied according to the above-described technology for removing fluorescent flicker, the S/N ratio is caused to greatly differ between image frames. With the S/N ratio being different from one image frame to another, the video encoding efficiency is reduced [14].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MERTENS in view of CHEN in view of TANAKA (US2021/0004989A1) in view of KASATANI (JP2013258679A).
Regarding claim 12, the previous combination of MERTENS and CHEN don’t teach however the analogous prior art TANAKA teaches:
[Claim 12] The image processing apparatus according to claim 1,
which is formed as a server that processes the captured image received via a network, the captured image being imaged by a camera that is operated by a user (TANAKA: fig. 1 see pars. 31-33),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine which is formed as a server that processes the captured image received via a network, the captured image being imaged by a camera that is operated by a user as shown in TANAKA with the previous combination for the benefit of addressing a shortcoming in the prior art in that, when an image is obtained by capturing a target (hereinafter, referred to as captured target image) under ambient light of an arbitrary light source, and not under a standard light source, the color of the captured target image displayed on a display device may appear different from the actual color of a captured target [3].
The previous combination of MERTENS in view of CHEN in view of TANAKA remains as above but doesn’t teach however the analogous prior art KASATANI teaches:
wherein a moving image produced on a basis of the corrected captured image is transmitted, via a network, to a terminal device that is operated by a user (KASATANI: pg. 3 lines 21-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine wherein a moving image produced on a basis of the corrected captured image is transmitted, via a network, to a terminal device that is operated by a user as shown in KASATANI with the previous combination for the benefit of to provide a video conference system that includes a wide angle camera device to improve usability [abstract].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 and 8-10 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3-5 and 8-10, the prior art doesn’t teach:
[Claim 3] The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the processing unit
corrects the captured image for each first unit, using a target image as a target of correction, and
estimates the parameter on a basis of a relationship between the captured image and the intermediate corrected image obtained from the captured image and the target image.
[Claim 4] The image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein
the processing unit corrects the captured image for each first unit from the captured image and the target image, using a trained model that has been trained by machine learning.
[Claim 5] The image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein
the trained model includes a deep neural network (DNN) that has been trained, an input being an image serving as training data, an output being a corrected image.
[Claim 8] The image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein
the processing unit
corrects the captured image for each first unit,
estimates a first parameter for correction of the captured image, on a basis of a relationship between the captured image and a first intermediate corrected image obtained by correction of the captured image,
corrects a target image for each first unit, the target image being a target of correction,
estimates a second parameter for correction of the captured image, on a basis of a relationship between the target image and a second intermediate corrected image obtained by correction of the target image,
estimates a third parameter for performing correction in a direction opposite to correction using the estimated second parameter, and
corrects the captured image for each second unit, using the estimated first parameter and third parameter.
[Claim 9] The image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein
the processing unit
corrects the captured image for each second unit, using the estimated first parameter, and
corrects the captured image corrected with the first parameter for each second unit, using the estimated third parameter.
[Claim 10] The image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein
the processing unit
estimates a fourth parameter by integrating the first parameter and the third parameter, and
corrects the captured image for each second unit, using the estimated fourth parameter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAURICE L MCDOWELL, JR whose telephone number is (571)270-3707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 2pm-10pm.
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, Said A. Broome can be reached at 571-272-2931. 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.
/MAURICE L. MCDOWELL, JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612