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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 – 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 1, 3 – 6, 2, 7, 7, 9 – 12, 8, 13, 13, 15 – 18 and 14, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,020,459.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 of instant application vs. claims 1, 7 and 13 of patent 12,020,459,
Claim 1 of instant application (similar as to claim 8 and 15)
Claim 1 of patent 12,020,459 (similar as to claim 7 and 13)
A computing device configured to:
(select pixels from a digital image using at least one sample rate;)
apply at least one filter to the selected pixels, the at least one filter including at least one of a chroma filter that removes pixels having a chroma value that is below a chroma threshold, a low lightness filter that removes pixels having a lightness value that is below a low lightness threshold, and a high lightness filter that removes pixels having the lightness value that is above a high lightness threshold;
group pixels from the remaining pixels after applying the at least one filter into a plurality of groups such that pixels having hue, chroma, and lightness values that are within a predetermined threshold of each other are grouped together; and
determine a dominant color for the digital image based on a color associated with a group from the plurality of groups that has a greatest number of pixels.
A computing device configured to:
divide a digital image into a plurality of pixel groups including at least a first set of pixels and a second set of pixels;
select pixels from the first set of pixels based on a first sample rate;
select pixels from the second set of pixels based on a second sample rate, the pixels in the first set of pixels being closer to the center of the image than the pixels in the second set of pixels and the first sample rate being greater than the second sample rate;
apply at least one filter to the selected pixels from the first and second sets of pixels, the at least one filter including at least one of a chroma filter that removes pixels having a chroma value that is below a chroma threshold, a low lightness filter that removes pixels having a lightness value that is below a low lightness threshold, and a high lightness filter that removes pixels having the lightness value that is above a high lightness threshold;
group pixels from the remaining pixels selected from the first and second sets pixels after applying the at least one filter into a plurality of groups such that pixels having hue, chroma, and lightness values that are within a predetermined threshold of each other are grouped together; and
determine a dominant color for the digital image based on a color associated with a group from the plurality of groups that has a greatest number of pixels.
The claim 1 of instant application discloses each limitation of the claim 1 of patent 12,020,459 (actually claim 1 of instant application is broader than claim 1 of patent 12,020,459).
Claims 2 – 7 of instant application are corresponding to claims 1, 3 – 6 and 2, respectively, of patent 12,020,459.
Claims 9 – 14 of instant application are corresponding to claims 7, 9 – 12 and 8, respectively, of patent 12,020,459.
Claims 16 – 21 of instant application are corresponding to claims 13, 15 – 18 and 14, respectively, of patent 12,020,459.
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 – 7 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 limitations “
apply at least one filter to the selected pixels, the at least one filter including at least one of a chroma filter that removes pixels having a chroma value that is below a chroma threshold, a low lightness filter that removes pixels having a lightness value that is below a low lightness threshold, and a high lightness filter that removes pixels having the lightness value that is above a high lightness threshold;
…
determine a dominant color for the digital image based on a color associated with a group from the plurality of groups that has a greatest number of pixels.” (emphasis added)
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2 – 7 are dependent claims of claim 1, they are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
No reference is found for 35 USC § 102/103 rejection.
The current invention is directed to a method/device for determine a dominant color for the digital image, comprising: divide a digital image into a plurality of pixel groups including at least a first set of pixels and a second set of pixels; select pixels from the first set of pixels based on a first sample rate; select pixels from the second set of pixels based on a second sample rate, the pixels in the first set of pixels being closer to the center of the image than the pixels in the second set of pixels and the first sample rate being greater than the second sample rate; apply at least one filter to the selected pixels from the first and second sets of pixels, the at least one filter including at least one of a chroma filter that removes pixels having a chroma value that is below a chroma threshold, a low lightness filter that removes pixels having a lightness value that is below a low lightness threshold, and a high lightness filter that removes pixels having the lightness value that is above a high lightness threshold; group pixels from the remaining pixels selected from the first and second sets pixels after applying the at least one filter into a plurality of groups such that pixels having hue, chroma, and lightness values that are within a predetermined threshold of each other are grouped together; and determine a dominant color for the digital image based on a color associated with a group from the plurality of groups that has a greatest number of pixels.
The closest reference Lings et al. (US 2012/0288195, IDS) discloses a regression analysis is performed using the RGB colour samples in the image and known XYZ colours thereof to characterise the colour capture response of the image capture device, taking into account spatial brightness variations across the image. Having characterised the image capture device the XYZ colour of the unknown colour sample can be determined from the RGB colour thereof in the image (abstract)
Kazunori et al. (JP 2006-350546, IDS) discloses a method wherein the representative color is determined by sampling with greater weighting for image units closer to the focus position (center position) of the image, and less weighting for image units farther away, and the sampling interval can be arbitrarily specified ([0034] - [0035], [0040], [0067] - [0068]).
Seiji (JP 2003-189186, IDS) discloses a technology wherein the image data is divided into a plurality of areas, and the density of the representative pixels is different for each area ([0038]).
However, neither Lings, Kazunori nor Seiji, alone or in combination, teach all the limitations recited in the independent claims of the instant application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights