CTNF 18/720,355 CTNF 71793 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by the NPL to Nayar et al - “Separation of Reflection Components Using Color and Polarization,” hereinafter referred to as “Nayar.” With regard to claim 1, Nayar discloses an image processing device comprising: a control unit that acquires a plurality of polarized images each having different polarization directions, and outputs a corrected image in which a specific region included in a specular reflection region is corrected on a basis of the plurality of polarized images (See page 171, “Separation of Reflection Components” and Figures 11 and 12. With regard to Claim 2, Nayar discloses wherein the specific region includes a region in which an image is reflected in the specular reflection region (See Figure 11 “interreflections” and page 165, “Reflection and Interreflection Mechanisms”). With regard to Claim 4, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit generates at least one of a specular image having a specular component as a pixel value or a diffused image having a diffusion component as a pixel value on a basis of the plurality of polarized images (See page 171, text near equation 15). With regard to Claim 5, Nayar discloses wherein the specific region is specified depending on the specular image (See Figure 10). With regard to Claim 8, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit outputs the corrected image obtained by applying pixelation processing to the specific region (See Figure 9). With regard to Claim 9, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit outputs the corrected image in which saturation of the specific region is lower than the saturation of a region other than the specific region (See page 177, “Parameter Estimation and Threshold Selections” with threshold T1 wherein the brightness level is broadly considered the claimed saturation level, i.e. brightness levels above T1 are considered specular and thus removed from the final output image). With regard to Claim 10, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit decreases saturation of the specific region (See claim 9 above). With regard to Claim 11, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit outputs the corrected image obtained by correcting the specific region with an intensity corresponding to a reflected image included in the specific region (See Figure 11). With regard to Claim 12, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit outputs the corrected image obtained by correcting the specific region with the intensity at which the reflected image included in the specific region enters a predetermined state (See page 177 and the calculated brightness threshold T1 being the claimed “predetermined state”). With regard to Claim 14, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit outputs the corrected image in which pixelation is disposed in an area corresponding to definition of the specific region (See Figure 10 and page 178 “7. Applications”). With regard to Claim 15, Nayar discloses wherein the control unit outputs the corrected image in which saturation of the specific region is reduced depending on dispersion of the specific region (See claim 9 above) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayar in view of US 2012/0020519 to Yashiro . With regard to Claim 3, Nayar fails to disclose wherein the specific region includes a region designated by a user. Nayar instead uses thresholding, see page 177, in order to automatically identify specular regions in the polarized images. However, in the same field of endeavor (removal of reflections in images), Yashiro discloses at [0025] and [0027] and [0034] that an input apparatus 206 is an apparatus for inputting instructions by a user to set a specific region. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the reflection removing apparatus of Nayar with the ability to have the user select the reflection region as taught by Yashiro as doing this would enable the user to manually override any reflection removing decision made by the Nayar system. The user is thus able to selectively pinpoint specific regions with which to focus the reflection removal process . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 7, 13, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nayar in view of US 2021/0357675 to Nakamura . With regard to Claims 6, 7, 13, and 16, Nayar discloses a control unit that acquires a plurality of polarized images each having different polarization directions, specifies a specific region included in a specular reflection region on a basis of the plurality of polarized images, and outputs a corrected image that removes the specular reflection component, see claim 1 above. Nayar fails to teach an output (corrected) image in which a ratio of specific frequency components in frequency components of the specific region is smaller than the ratio of the specific frequency components in frequency components of a region other than the specific region via the use of low-pass filtering of the specified reflection containing area. On the other hand, Nakamura discloses at [0019] and [0020] a specular reflection removal process using a plurality of polarized images. Nakamura teaches at [0030] and [0033] that a “smoothing filter” (i.e. the claimed low-pass filter) is applied to the background image 25 in order to remove high frequency components. By removing high frequency components in the background image, Nakamura’s process would result in a ratio of specific frequency components in frequency components of the specific region (background image 25) is smaller than the ratio of the specific frequency components in frequency components of a region other than the specific region (overall input image 21, see Figure 2 of Nakamura). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the thresholding technique of removing specular reflections taught by Nayar with the low-pass filtering technique taught by Nakamura as doing so would have preserved texture information of the object in the image after the removal of specular reflections as taught by Nakamura at [0045] . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2020/0211221 is an English equivalent corresponding to JP2020-106966 cited in the IDS filed 06/14/2024. Imagawa, Hirasawa et al, JP2013-044597A, and the NPL “Polarization-Based Specularity Removal Method with Global Energy Minimization” all disclose the general state of the art surrounding the removal of specular reflections in images via the use of various polarization techniques . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm. 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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. DAVID OMETZ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2672 /DAVID OMETZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/720,355 Page 2 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/720,355 Page 3 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/720,355 Page 4 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/720,355 Page 5 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/720,355 Page 6 Art Unit: 2672 Application/Control Number: 18/720,355 Page 7 Art Unit: 2672
Prosecution Insights