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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
A) Species of Fig. 7A/B
B) Species of Fig. 12A/B
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species.
Species A is directed towards an image processing apparatus/method reversing degradation of the input image based on the noise amount and the fluctuation amount utilizing the figures 7 method.
Species B is directed towards an image processing apparatus/method to control exposure of the imaging device based on the noise amount and the fluctuation amount utilizing the figures 12 method.
In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claim is generic.
There is a search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
The species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search queries); and/or the prior art applicable to one species would not likely be applicable to another species; and/or the species are likely to raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C 101 and/or 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
Claims 7-9, 11 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected elected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply over the phone on 3/27/2028.
Applicant's election with traverse is acknowledged. No argument was presented for the traversal. This is not found persuasive. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) submitted on is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim Interpretation
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.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“estimation unit” in claim(s) 1-7, 12 and 13.
“restoration unit” in claim(s) 1 and 12.
“control unit” in claim(s) 7-8 and 13.
“unit” in claim(s) 9.
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 paragraph.
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 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.
(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) 1-4, 6, 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al (US 20230080693 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hu teaches An image processing apparatus (Fig. 9) comprising:
an estimation unit configured to estimate a noise amount of an input image and a fluctuation amount of luminance of the input image caused by noise or developing (para. 0073: “The noise intensity of the image to be processed may be predicted by a neural network model”; para. 0175: “a brightness adjustment intensity prediction network may be used to predict a brightness enhancement parameter map of the image to be processed”); and
a restoration unit configured to reverse degradation of the input image based on the noise amount and the fluctuation amount (Figs. 6C, 7; paras. 0364: “image quality enhancement schemes include image denoising, image tone adjustment and image texture enhancement… wherein the image tone enhancement includes image brightness adjustment and/or image color enhancement”).
Regarding claim 2, Hu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimation unit estimates the noise amount using a trained CNN for estimating the noise amount (para. 0073: “The noise intensity of the image to be processed may be predicted by a neural network model”; para. 0121: convolutional neural network).
Regarding claim 3, Hu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimation unit estimates the fluctuation amount using a trained CNN for estimating the fluctuation amount (Fig. 4A; para. 0175: “a brightness adjustment intensity prediction network may be used to predict a brightness enhancement parameter map of the image to be processed”; para. 0185: “a neural network (i.e., a local brightness estimation network) may be used to obtain the local brightness information of the image to be processed”).
Regarding claim 4, Hu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimation unit estimates the noise amount and the fluctuation amount using a trained CNN for estimating the noise amount and the fluctuation amount (as taught in claims 2-3).
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimation unit estimates a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by fading of a black color, darkening of a white color (Figs. 4A, 5E; estimated by brightness adjustment model 405), and a magenta cast (Fig. 4A; estimated by color adjustment model 407).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Regarding claim 12, Hu teaches A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (paras. 0366-0368) storing a computer program for causing a computer to function as: (features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above).
Claim(s) 1, 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakada et al (US 5278638 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nakada teaches An image processing apparatus (Fig. 3; col. 1, line 5: “a noise-in-image-signal reducing circuit used in video disk players, video tape recorders, and television receivers”) comprising:
an estimation unit configured to estimate a noise amount (A-B) of an input image and a fluctuation amount (K(A-B)) of luminance of the input image caused by noise or developing (Fig. 3); and
a restoration unit configured to reverse degradation of the input image based on the noise amount and the fluctuation amount (Figs. 3, 5; col. 4; “The compensation signal calculator 5 receives the signal (A-B) and reads the corresponding compensation signal K(A-B) from the table 501 (see FIG. 8). The signal K(A-B) is directed as a noise reduction signal to the switch 502”).
Regarding claim 5, Nakada teaches image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the noise amount and the fluctuation amount are in a proportional relationship (K(A-B) relationship), and the estimation unit estimates a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by processing for fitting the noise amount within a range of unsigned integers that can be stored at a predetermined bit depth (Figs. 3, 5; col. 4; “The compensation signal calculator 5 receives the signal (A-B) and reads the corresponding compensation signal K(A-B) from the table 501 (see FIG. 8). The signal K(A-B) is directed as a noise reduction signal to the switch 502”).
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 reciting features corresponding to claim 1 is also rejected for the same reason above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hu et al (US 20230080693 A1) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Barron (US 20160350900 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Hu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the estimation unit estimates a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by fading of a black color, darkening of a white color (Figs. 4A, 5E; estimated by brightness adjustment model 405), and a magenta cast (Fig. 4A; estimated by color adjustment model 407).
Or, in the alternative, Hu fails to teach
estimates a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by a magenta cast.
However, in the same field of endeavor Barron teaches
estimates a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by a magenta cast (Fig. 7; paras. 0101-0104; “Block 702 may involve, possibly based on colors of the input image, generating a two-dimensional chrominance histogram of the input image” as estimating a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by a magenta cast, “Block 704 may involve convolving the two-dimensional chrominance histogram with a filter to create a two-dimensional heat map. Entries in the two-dimensional heat map may represent respective estimates of how close respective tints corresponding to the respective entries are to the white point of the input image”; para. 0054: “one camera produces images that are consistently tinted cyan, and another camera produces images that are consistently tinted purple”: magenta cast; para. 0104: “tinting the input image to form an output image… the output image may be more white-balanced than the input image”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use the teachings as taught by Barron in Hu to have estimates a fluctuation amount of luminance caused by a magenta cast for obtaining better white-balanced output image with removed magenta cast yielding a predicted result.
Prior arts
Sun et al (CN-108765319-A) teaches “step 8, according to step 7 to obtain the noise strength, selects parameters for generating network. step 9, the image to be processed as network input, so as to obtain the image after denoising”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights