DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a dividing unit, a processing unit, a combining unit in claims 1-17;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth para.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu ( US 20200126184).
Regarding claim 1, Zhu teaches an image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more processors that execute a program stored in a memory ( 740, 710 in Fig. 7B) and thereby function as:
a dividing unit configured to divide an image into a plurality of blocks( 310 in Fig. 3) ;
a processing unit configured to perform upscaling processing on each of the plurality of blocks ( 330 in Fig. 3); and
a combining unit configured to combine upscaled images of the plurality of blocks into one upscaled image ( OUTPUT IMAGE in 360 in Fig. 3)
wherein, in a case where an upscaled image of a partial region of an original image is to be generated,
the dividing unit divides the partial region into a plurality of blocks at predetermined positions regardless of a position of the partial region in the original image ( 340 in Fig. 3) .
Regarding claim 9, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined position is based on a multiple of a size of the block( 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160 in Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 10, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing unit performs the upscaling processing using a trained machine learning model of which an input image is one of the plurality of blocks ( [0005], upscaling each sub-picture using an ML-based upscaler to produce an expanded upscaled sub-picture), and
the dividing unit divides the image into the plurality of blocks such that each of the plurality of blocks in a size determined in accordance with a size of an input image that the trained machine learning model can handle( 630 in Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 11, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dividing unit can selectively divide the partial region into the plurality of blocks at positions based on the position of the partial region ( Fig. 2)
Regarding claim 12, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the dividing unit divides the partial region into a plurality of blocks at positions based on the position of the partial region in case where a setting of the image processing apparatus or a dynamic factor satisfies a predetermined condition ( 132 in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 13, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the dividing unit divides the image into the plurality of blocks such that each of the plurality of blocks in a size selected from a plurality of sizes( [0027], the maximum size of the sub-picture that can be sent for training is 64×64 or 128×128 pixels).
Regarding claim 14, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the plurality of sizes are sizes of input images of a plurality of machine learning models that perform the upscaling processing([0027], Regarding how small a small-sized sub-picture needs to be depends on the memory size and the complexity of the neural network used in training).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 13, wherein in a case where a number of pixels that are not in the partial region in a block, among the plurality of blocks, that includes the partial region when dividing the image into a plurality of blocks in a first block size is smaller than that when dividing the image into a plurality of blocks in a second block size, the dividing unit selects the first block size([0027], Regarding how small a small-sized sub-picture needs to be depends on the memory size and the complexity of the neural network used in training).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 2-8, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of NOYES ( US20140198237).
Regarding claim 2, Zhu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in a case where the upscaled image of the partial region is to be generated, the dividing unit divides all of the original image into the plurality of blocks at the predetermined positions ( 310 in Fig. 3).
Zhu does not expressly teach the processing unit does not perform the upscaling processing on a block, among the plurality of blocks, that does not include the partial region.
However, NOYES teaches perform the upscaling processing on a block, among the plurality of blocks, that does not include the partial region([0006], receiving cropped image data corresponding to the portion from the image sensor and upscaling the cropped image data).
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 teaching of Zhu and NOYES, by cropping the image in Zhu following the teaching of NOYES before upscaling in Zhu, with motivation “to generate a zoomed image” ( NOYES, [0006]).
Regarding claim 3, Zhu in view of NOYES teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors further function as a cropping unit configured to crop a part corresponding to the partial region from the one upscaled image obtained by the combining unit(Zhu, [0005], cropping for the plurality of sub-pictures ; NOYES, [0006], receiving cropped image data).
Regarding claim 4, Zhu in view of NOYES teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in a case where an upscaled image of a partial region of an original image is to be generated, the dividing unit divides the partial region cropped from the original image into the plurality of blocks at the predetermined positions(Zhu, [0005], cropping for the plurality of sub-pictures ; NOYES, [0006], cropped image data).
Regarding claim 5, Zhu in view of NOYES teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein for a block, among the plurality of blocks, that includes a region in which pixels are not present, the processing unit performs the upscaling processing after supplementing pixels that are not present(Zhu, [0005], expanding each sub-picture of the plurality of small-sized sub-pictures using target padding pixels to produce an expanded sub-picture; upscaling each sub-picture).
Regarding claim 6, Zhu in view of NOYES teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processing unit supplements the pixels that are not present by shifting a position of the block that includes a region in which the pixels are not present within the partial region (Zhu, [0005], cropping the expanded upscaled sub-picture to an upscaled size equal to an original size of each sub-picture).
Regarding claim 7, Zhu in view of NOYES teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein for an upscaled image of the block that includes the supplemented pixels, the combining unit uses, in the combining, only a region corresponding to a part that was included in the block before the pixels were supplemented(Zhu, [0005], cropping the expanded upscaled sub-picture to an upscaled size equal to an original size of each sub-picture).
Regarding claim 8, Zhu in view of NOYES teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein for a block, among the plurality of blocks, in which a percentage of the region in which pixels are not present is not greater than a threshold, the processing unit does not supplement the pixels that are not present ( Zhu, [0033], the type A pad design is used for the left sub-region, the bottom sub-region, and the bottom left corner sub-region. Accordingly, the expanded sub-picture 132 shows those sub-regions (i.e., the left sub-region, the bottom sub-region, and the bottom left corner sub-region) being formed by extending the image area to the four direction) .
Claim 16 -18 and 19-20 recite similar apparatus for the apparatus and the method of claims 1-15, thus they are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F.
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, Randolph Vincent can be reached at 571 272 8243. 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.
JIANGENG SUN
Examiner
Art Unit 2661
/Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights