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 .
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action dated 5/18/2026, as well as arguments and amendments made, filed 8/18/2026 have been entered and made of record.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The arguments made regarding claim 1 are merely directed to the amended portion of the claim, and the new analyses presented below render these arguments moot. Applicant’s amendment of independent claims 1, 9, and 16 has altered the scope of the claims, and therefore, has initiated the following new ground(s) of rejection. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al. (US 2025/0373829 A1 w/ EFD of 02/20/2023), in view of Tarhate (“Weight Maps Guided Underwater Image Enhancement By Fusion Technique”), in further view of Ye et al. (“Blurriness-Guided Unsharp Masking”).
Regarding claim 1, Classen teaches, “(Classen, Para. [0151] discloses; “For example, in an image upsampling scenario, the amplification of high frequency components can be used to sharpen blurred edges.” Examiner interprets that the disclosure of Classen determines the high frequency components.) “determining, using the at least one processing device, a weighting map based on blurriness of at least some pixels in the image, the weighting map representing how much to sharpen the at least some pixels in the image, ” (Classen, Para. [0079] discloses; “A “weighting map” is a map or a mask which contains scalar weights which indicate the intensity or strength with which a filter is to be applied to a position (e.g. sample) of a picture” and Classen, Para. [0082] discloses; “A “signal enhancement filter” may refer to a filter that acts to enhance a signal, particularly an upsampled signal. In general, in the described embodiments, the signal enhancement filter is a filter configured to reduce edge blurring (i.e. to sharpen a picture block).” Examiner interprets this weighting map to be based on blurriness and represent how much to sharpen since the filter sharpens the image based on the weighting map.) “applying, using the at least one processing device, the weighting map to the high-frequency features of the image to generate weighted high-frequency features;” (Classen, Para. [0151] discloses; “For example, in such a setup of weighting maps, a signal enhancement filter with filter coefficients optimized for a weighting map is determined which could amplify high frequency components without causing significant ringing.” Examiner interprets that this weighting map is applied to the high frequency components of the image and inherently generates weighted high frequency components.) “wherein determining the weighting map comprises generating a blurriness map that identifies blurriness estimates for at least a subset of pixels in the image and generating the weighting map based on the blurriness map;” and “combining, using the at least one processing device, the weighted high-frequency features with the at least some pixels in the image to generate an enhanced image”. Since Classen does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Tarhate in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Tarhate teaches, “A method comprising: obtaining, using at least one processing device of an electronic device, an image” (Tarhate, Abstract discloses; “A single image approach is used in which a degraded image is taken as an input and then various digital image operations are performed on it to enhance the quality of the underwater image.” Examiner interprets the image being an input as obtaining the image using a processing device.) and “combining, using the at least one processing device, the weighted high-frequency features with the at least some pixels in the image to generate an enhanced image” (Tarhate, Introduction discloses; “Then these images along with their weight maps are combined to get a fused image.” It would have been obvious to use the weighted high-frequency features of Classen in the fusing process disclosed by Tarhate.)
Classen and Tarhate are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image enhancement using weighting maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Classen to incorporate the teachings of Tarhate in order to generate an enhanced image based on the combination of weighted high-frequency components and the original image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen with the teachings of Tarhate to ensure the high-frequency components of the image are properly weighted when combined with the original image to generate an enhanced image. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen and Tarhate to obtain the above specified limitations.
Further regarding claim 1, the combination of Classen and Tarhate does not explicitly teach, “wherein determining the weighting map comprises generating a blurriness map that identifies blurriness estimates for at least a subset of pixels in the image and generating the weighting map based on the blurriness map;” Since the combination of Classen and Tarhate does not explicitly disclose this limitation, Examiner relies on the teachings of Ye in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Ye teaches, “wherein determining the weighting map comprises generating a blurriness map that identifies blurriness estimates for at least a subset of pixels in the image” (Ye, Abstract discloses; “To achieve this goal, a pixel-wise local blurriness estimation method is developed for generating a pixel-wise blurriness map”) “and generating the weighting map based on the blurriness map;” (Ye, Abstract discloses; “To achieve this goal, a pixel-wise local blurriness estimation method is developed for generating a pixel-wise blurriness map, followed by individually converting each blurriness measurement on the map to a scaling factor via a mapping process.” and Ye, Section 2.2 discloses; “The obtained M as described previously will be utilized as a guidance information to determine the scaling factor (i.e., enhancement strength) for each pixel.” Examiner interprets the scaling factor mapping to be a weighting map based on the blurriness map. The scaling factor mapping represents how much to enhance the pixels. Ye also discloses in the Abstract and Para. 1 of the introduction, that they implement an adaptive unsharp masking method for image enhancement by improving sharpness. Thus, the scaling factor mapping represents how much to sharpen the pixels.)
Classen, Tarhate, and Ye are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of image enhancement using weighting maps. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen and Tarhate to incorporate the teachings of Ye in order to create a weighting map based on the blurriness of at least some of the pixels. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen and Tarhate with the teachings of Ye to perform pixel-wise enhancement of the image. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, and Ye to obtain claim 1.
Claim 9 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, and Ye references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claim 16 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, and Ye references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., and still in view of Xie et al. (US 2022/0051370 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly teach “The method of Claim 1, wherein the weighted high-frequency features are combined with some but not all of the pixels in the image in order to provide image enhancement in a portion of the image without providing image enhancement in another portion of the image.” Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Xie in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Xie teaches, “The method of Claim 1, wherein the weighted high-frequency features are combined with some but not all of the pixels in the image in order to provide image enhancement in a portion of the image without providing image enhancement in another portion of the image.” (Xie, Para. [0005] discloses; “According to a first aspect, an embodiment of this disclosure provides an image enhancement method, including: (1) obtaining an image; (2) extracting high-frequency components of the image; (3) calculating an average pixel value of pixels corresponding to the extracted high-frequency components; and (4) performing enhancement on pixels in the image that have pixel values greater than or equal to the calculated average pixel value to obtain an enhanced image.” It would have been obvious to combine the weighted high frequency components of Classen, with the enhancing process disclosed by Xie.)
Classen, Tarhate, Ye and Xie are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye to incorporate the teachings of Xie in order to combine the image and the high-frequency features, and then enhance only part of the image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye with the teachings of Xie to only enhance the areas of the image containing the high-frequency features. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie to obtain claim 2.
Claim 10 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claim 17 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 2. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie references, presented in rejection of Claim 2, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., still in view of Xie et al., and finally in view of Strandborg et al. (US 2025/0155970 A1 w/ EFD of 11/09/2023).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie does not explicitly teach, “The method of Claim 2, wherein the portion of the image in which the image enhancement is provided represents a region of the image on which a user is focused”. Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Strandborg in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Strandborg teaches, “The method of Claim 2, wherein the portion of the image in which the image enhancement is provided represents a region of the image on which a user is focused” (Strandborg, Para. [0066] discloses; “It will be appreciated that the encoded image sent to the client device enhances a visual experience of the user as the pixels belonging to the region of interest where the user's gaze is focused, are displayed with a higher visual quality in comparison to the pixels belonging to the remaining part of the image.”).
Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Strandborg are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg in order to enhance the area of the image associated with a user’s gaze. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie with the teachings of Strandborg to only enhance the areas of the image where a user is focused. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Strandborg to obtain claim 3.
Claim 11 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 3. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Strandborg references, presented in rejection of Claim 3, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Strandborg references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claims 4, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., still in view of Xie et al., and finally in view of Jeong et al. (US 2017/0316600 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie does not explicitly teach, “The method of Claim 2, further comprising: identifying a region of the image on which a user is focused; creating a mesh associated with the identified region; and mapping the pixels in the image within the region onto the mesh; wherein combining the weighted high-frequency features with the at least some pixels comprises combining the weighted high-frequency features with the mapped pixels.” Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Jeong in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Jeong teaches, “The method of Claim 2, further comprising: identifying a region of the image on which a user is focused;” (Jeong, Para. [0142] discloses; “For example, if the device 100 receives information indicating that a user's gaze is directed in the first direction from the terminal 200, the device 100 may select the first image 1112 corresponding to the first direction from among the one or more images 1110”) “creating a mesh associated with the identified region;” (Jeong, Para. [0153] discloses; “The information about mapping may include information about positions at which pixels included in the one or more images are mapped onto the 3D mesh model”) “and mapping the pixels in the image within the region onto the mesh;” (Jeong, Para. [0153] discloses; “The information about mapping may include information about positions at which pixels included in the one or more images are mapped onto the 3D mesh model”) “wherein combining the weighted high-frequency features with the at least some pixels comprises combining the weighted high-frequency features with the mapped pixels.” (Jeong, Para. [0153] discloses; “The information about mapping may include information about positions at which pixels included in the one or more images are mapped onto the 3D mesh model” It would have been obvious to combine the weighted high frequency components of Classen, with the mapping of Jeong.)
Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Jeong are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie to incorporate the teachings of Jeong in order to create a mesh of the region where a user is focused. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Xie with the teachings of Jeong to create a mesh with mapped points of the regions in which a user is focused. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Jeong to obtain claim 4.
Claim 12 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Jeong references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Jeong references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claim 18 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 4. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Jeong references, presented in rejection of Claim 4, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, Xie, and Jeong references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., and still in view of Barnum et al. (US 2013/0089269 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly teach, “The method of Claim 1, further comprising: adaptively filtering the image prior to determining the high-frequency features of the image and prior to determining the weighting map; wherein the adaptive filtering for a given pixel in the image is based on a difference between (i) a value of the given pixel and (ii) one or more values of one or more neighboring pixels around the given pixel.” Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Barnum in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Barnum teaches, “The method of Claim 1, further comprising: adaptively filtering the image prior to determining the high-frequency features of the image and prior to determining the weighting map; wherein the adaptive filtering for a given pixel in the image is based on a difference between (i) a value of the given pixel and (ii) one or more values of one or more neighboring pixels around the given pixel.” (Barnum, Abstract discloses; “A method is provided that includes generating coefficients of a scene adaptive filter (SAF) based on differences between values of neighboring pixels in a representative two dimensional (2D) image, and applying the SAF to a plurality of corresponding 2D images.” It would be obvious and simply a design choice to perform the adaptive filtering before determining the weighting map and high-frequency features.)
Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye to incorporate the teachings of Barnum in order to filter the image before determining the weighting map and high-frequency features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye with the teachings of Barnum to ensure the image is filtered properly before proceeding to the weighting map and high-frequency feature obtaining. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum to obtain claim 5.
Claim 13 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claim 19 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 5. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum references, presented in rejection of Claim 5, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., and still in view of Hyakutake et al. (US 2008/0273102 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly teach, “The method of Claim 1, around the given pixel.” Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Hyakutake in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Hyakutake teaches, “The method of Claim 1, wherein: adaptively filtering the image prior to determining the high-frequency features of the image and prior to determining the weighting map; wherein the adaptive filtering for a given pixel in the image is based on a difference between (i) a feature map of the given pixel and (ii) one or more feature maps of one or more neighboring pixels around the given pixel.” (Hyakutake, Para. [0015] discloses; “FIG. 5 is a defect map that shows the magnitude relationship between the threshold and the differences between the pixel value of the target pixel and the pixel values of the neighboring same-color pixels with the target pixel” It would be obvious and simply a design choice to perform the adaptive filtering before determining the weighting map and high-frequency features.)
Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Hyakutake are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye to incorporate the teachings of Hyakutake in order to filter the image before determining the weighting map and high-frequency features. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye with the teachings of Hyakutake to ensure the image is filtered properly before proceeding to the weighting map and high-frequency feature obtaining. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Hyakutake to obtain claim 6.
Claim 14 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 6. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum references, presented in rejection of Claim 6, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Barnum references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claims 7, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., and still in view of Reddy (US 2020/0226718 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly teach, “The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the high-frequency features of the image comprises one of: generating a blurred version of the image and subtracting the blurred version of the image from the image; or convolving the image with different Gaussian kernels and determining a difference between resulting convolutions.” Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Reddy in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Reddy teaches, “The method of Claim 1, wherein determining the high-frequency features of the image comprises one of: generating a blurred version of the image and subtracting the blurred version of the image from the image; or convolving the image with different Gaussian kernels and determining a difference between resulting convolutions.” (Reddy, Para. [0029] discloses; “For each reference image 110, the pixel values of the blurred image is subtracted from the corresponding pixel values of the original reference image to generate a corresponding high frequency image.”)
Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Reddy are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye to incorporate the teachings of Reddy in order to determine high-frequency features by subtracting the blurred image from the original image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye with the teachings of Reddy to determine high-frequency features simply by subtracting the blurred image from the original image. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Reddy to obtain claim 7.
Claim 15 recites a system with elements corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Reddy references, presented in rejection of Claim 7, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Reddy references discloses a processor (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claim 20 recites a computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 7. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Reddy references, presented in rejection of Claim 7, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Reddy references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Classen, Para. [0254] discloses; “Hence, in embodiments, the non-transitory computer readable medium 22 is configured to store a computer program capable of being run in the processor 21, and the processor 21 is configured to run the computer program to perform steps in any of the encoder methods discussed herein.”)
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Classen et al., in view of Tarhate, in further view of Ye et al., and still in view of Strandborg et al. (US 2025/0155970 A1 w/ EFD of 11/09/2023).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly teach, “The method of Claim 1, wherein: the image is obtained using a see-through camera of a video see-through (VST) extended reality (XR) device; and the method further comprises presenting the enhanced image on a display of the VST XR device.” Since the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye does not explicitly disclose these limitations, Examiner relies on the teachings of Strandborg in an analogous field of endeavor. Specifically, Strandborg teaches, “The method of Claim 1, wherein: the image is obtained using a see-through camera of a video see-through (VST) extended reality (XR) device;” (Strandborg, Para. [0041] discloses; “Throughout the present disclosure, the term “image” refers to a visual representation of the XR environment viewed by the user from the specific pose of the user's head for which the gaze point and the gaze depth are determined. In an embodiment when the XR environment encompasses at least one of: the AR environment, the MR environment, the image is a visual see through (VST) image of a real-world environment of the user viewed by the user from the specific pose of the user's head, which is received from the client device.”) “and the method further comprises presenting the enhanced image on a display of the VST XR device.” (Strandborg, Para. [0066] discloses; “Notably, the image that is encoded is sent to the client device for the image to be displayed to the user via the client device for the XR applications. It will be appreciated that the encoded image sent to the client device enhances a visual experience of the user as the pixels belonging to the region of interest where the user's gaze is focused, are displayed with a higher visual quality in comparison to the pixels belonging to the remaining part of the image.”)
Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Strandborg are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of processing and enhancing images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combination of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye to incorporate the teachings of Strandborg in order to obtain and display the images on a VST XR device. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the previously described method of Classen, Tarhate, and Ye with the teachings of Strandborg to apply the claimed method to a VST XR application. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to combine Classen, Tarhate, Ye, and Strandborg to obtain claim 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN M. OAKES whose telephone number is (571)272-9379. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5pm.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/JUSTIN M OAKES/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights