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 (i.e., a descriptive title that distinguishes the invention and is not a generic or general description). The new title should take into account any amendments to the claims to best indicate the claimed invention.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/20/24 follows the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhang (CN 111583138; cited in IDS filed 9/20/24).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a video super-resolution method (summary of invention, page 1), comprising:
decomposing a target image frame of a video to be super-resolved into a plurality of image blocks (step S310: divide each video frame into multiple image blocks; pages 4-5, Fig. 3);
obtaining a super-resolution feature of the target image frame according to the plurality of image blocks and image blocks obtained by decomposing other image frames in the video to be super-resolved (step S320: target image blocks matching a single image block in the video frame are selected; pages 4-5, Fig. 3); and
obtaining a super-resolution image frame corresponding to the target image frame according to the super-resolution feature of the target image frame according to the super-resolution feature of the target image frame (steps S330-S340: enhanced image block , pages 4-5, Fig. 3 and page 8).
Regarding claim 17, Zhang teaches an electronic device (electronic device 100, page 3, Fig. 1), comprising:
a memory and a processor, the memory being configured to store instructions; and the processor being configured to, when executing the instructions (CPU 101 and memory 102; page 3, Fig. 1), cause the electronic device to implement a video super-resolution method comprising (video enhancement method; page 4, Fig. 3):
decomposing a target image frame of a video to be super-resolved into a plurality of image blocks (step S310: divide each video frame into multiple image blocks; pages 4-5, Fig. 3);
obtaining a super-resolution feature of the target image frame according to the plurality of image blocks and image blocks obtained by decomposing other image frames in the video to be super-resolved (step S320: target image blocks matching a single image block in the video frame are selected; pages 4-5, Fig. 3); and
obtaining a super-resolution image frame corresponding to the target image frame according to the super-resolution feature of the target image frame according to the super-resolution feature of the target image frame (steps S330-S340: enhanced image block, pages 4-5, Fig. 3 and page 8).
Claim 18 recites similar limitation as claims 1 and 17 thus, arguments similar to that presented above for claims 1 and 17 are equally applicable to claim 18.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-15, 21, and 22 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu et al. (US 2021/0192687) teaches an image processing method that obtains an input image and increases the resolution of the input image..
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENT YIP whose telephone number is (571)270-5244. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:00 PM PST.
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, Akwasi M. Sarpong can be reached at (571) 270-3438. 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.
/KENT YIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Prosecution Insights