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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the Application filed on 08/29/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/09/2024 has been fully considered by the examiner.
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:
“processing apparatus”, present in claims 10-18, with corresponding structure found in at least figure 5 and paragraphs 0080-0096 of the originally-filed specification.
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 § 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 5 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 5, the claim first recites “wherein the angle is quantized to a nearest angle from a discrete set of supported angles in a plane of the color space with dimensions corresponding to the second component image and the third component image”; this limitation is clear. However, the claim further narrows the above “supported angles” by reciting “and each supported angle is mapped to a color for focus peaking highlighting that contrasts well with the colors corresponding to the angle” (emphasis added).
This characteristic of “contrasting well” is a subjective term. MPEP 2173.05(b).IV requires that the specification provide some standard for measuring subjective terms beyond an unrestrained, subjective opinion, which the originally-filed specification does not appear to provide.
The only description of the supported angles in the originally-filed specification is in paragraph 0160, which repeats the claim language of claims 5/14, and then provides example supported angles, but no examples of the contrasting colors mapped to each supported angle. The earlier sections of paragraph 0160 do describe methods of obtaining contrasting colors from the original, un-quantized angle, such as by rotating it by 90 or 180 degrees in the color space, but it is unclear if this is what the “mapping” of the quantized angle in claims 5 and 14 refers to or not. Notably, claims 3/12 and 4/13 separately claim these 90- and 180-degree rotations, lending credence to a separate mapping process that is unclear.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 5 above.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 9-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
A method, comprising:
accessing a color image including a first component image, a second component image, and a third component image that each encode a dimension of a color space used to encode the color image;
selecting pixels of the color image for focus peaking highlighting based on pixel values of the first component image;
and determining a color for focus peaking highlighting based on the second component image and on the third component image.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a process, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Steps c and d can be regarded as mental processes, including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions, that can be practically performed in the human mind. Step c requires selecting pixels from a first color image for focus peaking highlighting, which is only limited to be “based on pixel values of the first component image.” This can be mentally performed by a human simply examining any pixel values of the component image and selecting any subset for focus peaking highlighting using any methodology. Step d requires determining a color for focus peaking highlighting, only limited to be “based on the second component image and on the third component image.” Respectively, a human mentally choosing a color would read on this, as long as it involves any mental consideration of the other two component images in any way (YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Part a is a non-limiting preamble. Part b requires accessing the color image and the three component images, which amounts to mere data gathering (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole recites data gathering of the three component images, and then performing tasks using said component images that are all also mentally performable (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claims 10 and 19, which additionally recite computerized systems at a high level of generality, which do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 10 and 19 are not eligible.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 narrow the color determination to include determining pixel value averages of the second and third component images, which are both mentally-performable and also mathematical calculations. The claims further recite determining an angle based on the averages and determining the color based on the angle, both of which are also mentally-performable. Claims 2, 11, and 20 are not eligible.
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 further narrow the color determination to be based on rotating the angle either by 90 or 180 degrees, which is mentally-performable and also a mathematical calculation. Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 are not eligible.
Claims 5 and 14 recite that the angle is quantized to a nearest angle from a discrete set of supported angles, which is mentally-performable and also a mathematical calculation. The claims further recite that each supported angle is mapped to a color that contrasts well, which is mentally-performable. Claims 5 and 14 are not eligible.
Claims 6 and 15 recite that only the selected pixels are used to compute the two averages, which is still mentally-performable. Claims 6 and 15 are not eligible.
Claims 7 and 16 recite using the determined color to apply focus peaking highlighting to the selected pixels of the color image to obtain a highlighted image, which integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 7 and 16 are eligible.
Claims 8 and 17 similarly recite applying focus peaking highlighting, but additionally to multiple frames of video, which similarly integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 8 and 17 16 are eligible.
Claims 9 and 18 narrow the three component images to specific species of pixel data types, which does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claims 9 and 18 are not eligible.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kawakami (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0182555-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kawakami discloses a method (see figure 4), comprising:
accessing a color image including a first component image, a second component image, and a third component image that each encode a dimension of a color space used to encode the color image (see paragraphs 0069-0070, where an image can be captured and stored in a variety of formats, such as RGB or YCrCb, both of which encode three separate component images; in the case of YCrCb, Y is denoted as brightness, and Cr/Cb are denoted as red/blue color differences, respectively);
selecting pixels of the color image for focus peaking highlighting based on pixel values of the first component image (see paragraphs 0079-0082, where pixels making up an "edge portion" of the image are selected, such as by applying the pixels to a high-pass filter; this can be considered to be based on all or any one of the components of the image);
and determining a color for focus peaking highlighting based on the second component image and on the third component image (first, see figure 3, hue ring 50, figure 4, step ST101 and paragraphs 0118-0125 and 0129, where two or more "color candidates" on the hue ring are first selected; then, see figure 4, steps ST102-104 and paragraphs 0132-0146, where for each pixel in the edge portion, the average hue of pixels around said pixel is calculated; this can be considered to be based on all or any one of the components of the image – paragraphs 0114 and 0130 specify that hues can be determined from individual RGB or color difference values, in which case the red/blue color differences Cr/Cb would be the second/third components; finally, see figure 4, steps ST105-107 and paragraphs 0149-0156, where for each pixel in the edge portion, the color candidate furthest from the average hue is selected to replace said pixel for focus peaking highlighting).
Regarding claim 2, Kawakami discloses wherein determining the color for focus peaking highlighting comprises: determining a first average for pixel values of the second component image; determining a second average for pixel values of the third component image (the above hue averaging of figure 4, steps ST102-104 and paragraphs 0132-1046 requires averaging, for example, pixels in the YCrCb format; this results in an averaged hue value consisting of an averaged Cr / second component value, and an averaged Cb / third component value);
determining an angle based on the first average and the second average (figure 3, hue ring 50 and paragraph 0115 specify that hues on the hue ring are represented by angles; in the case of YCrCb, hues are determined by the Cr and Cb values, including the above averaged Cr and Cb values);
and determining the color for focus peaking highlighting based on the angle (see figure 4, steps ST105-107 and paragraphs 0149-0154, where the averaged hue is set to the color candidate further away on the color wheel, or in other words, to the color candidate with the most different angle).
Regarding claim 3, Kawakami discloses wherein the color for focus peaking highlighting is determined to be rotated 180 degrees from the angle in a plane of the color space with dimensions corresponding to the second component image and the third component image (figure 3, hue ring 50, red color candidate angle 43a, light blue color candidate angle 43b and paragraphs 0150-0152 illustrate an example of the angle mapping cited in claim 2 above, where the averaged hue is identified to be closest to the light blue angle, and then the complementary red angle is chosen as the new angle by rotating 180 degrees; this reads on quantizing the averaged hue angle to the light blue angle, then mapping the light blue angle to the well-contrasting red angle).
Regarding claim 5, Kawakami discloses wherein the angle is quantized to a nearest angle from a discrete set of supported angles in a plane of the color space with dimensions corresponding to the second component image and the third component image and each supported angle is mapped to a color for focus peaking highlighting that contrasts well with the colors corresponding to the angle (figure 3, hue ring 50, red color candidate angle 43a, light blue color candidate angle 43b and paragraphs 0150-0152 illustrate an example of the angle mapping cited in claim 2 above, where the averaged hue is identified to be closest to the light blue angle, and then the complementary red angle is chosen as the new angle by rotating 180 degrees; this reads on quantizing the averaged hue angle to the light blue angle, then mapping the light blue angle to the well-contrasting red angle).
Regarding claim 6, Kawakami discloses wherein only the selected pixels of the color image are used to compute the first average and the second average (see figure 5, pixel region 51 and paragraph 0141-0149, where each pixel's hue is averaged only among those surrounding said pixel in the pixel region; paragraphs 0147-0148 specify that the size of the pixel region can be changed accordingly to avoid the influence of pixels outside the edge portion).
Regarding claim 7, Kawakami discloses applying focus peaking highlighting, of the color for focus peaking highlighting, to the selected pixels of the color image to obtain a highlighted image (see paragraphs 0090 and 0093, where a synthesized/highlighted image is generated by replacing the pixels in the edge portion with their selected color candidates, and then output to a display device).
Regarding claim 8, Kawakami discloses wherein the color image is a frame video in a sequence of frames of video (see paragraph 0068),
and further comprising: applying focus peaking highlighting, of a color determined based on an earlier frame in the sequence of frames of video, to the selected pixels of the color image to obtain a first highlighted frame of video; and applying focus peaking highlighting, of the color for focus peaking highlighting, to selected pixels of a later frame in the sequence of frames of video to obtain a second highlighted frame of video (see paragraphs 0196-0198, where, over time, the detected colors can be switched or blinked in alternating frames, thus the previous determined colors are propagated across future frames).
Regarding claim 9, Kawakami discloses wherein the first component image encodes luminance pixel values, the second component image encodes a first chrominance channel of the color image, and the third component image encodes a second chrominance channel of the color image (see paragraphs 0069-0070, where an image can be captured and stored in a variety of formats, such as RGB or YCrCb, both of which encode three separate component images; in the case of YCrCb, Y is denoted as brightness/luminance, and Cr/Cb are denoted as red/blue color differences or chrominance values, respectively; paragraphs 0114 and 0130 specify that hues can be determined from individual RGB or color difference values, in which case the red/blue color differences Cr/Cb would be the second/third components).
Regarding claim 10, Kawakami discloses a system (see figure 19), comprising:
an image sensor (see figure 19, camera head 5005 and paragraph 0242),
and a processing apparatus configured to (see figure 19, CCU 5039, image processing unit / processor 5061 and paragraphs 0254-0259).
The remainder of claim 10 recites steps identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, Kawakami discloses claim 10 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 11, Kawakami discloses claim 11 as applied to claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 12, Kawakami discloses claim 12 as applied to claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 14, Kawakami discloses claim 14 as applied to claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 15, Kawakami discloses claim 15 as applied to claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 16, Kawakami discloses claim 16 as applied to claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, Kawakami discloses a display (see paragraph 0065, display device 15),
and wherein the color image is a frame video in a sequence of frames of video (see paragraph 0068),
and wherein the processing apparatus is configured to: apply focus peaking highlighting, of a color determined based on an earlier frame in the sequence of frames of video, to the selected pixels of the color image to obtain a first highlighted frame of video; apply focus peaking highlighting, of the color for focus peaking highlighting, to selected pixels of a later frame in sequence of frames of video to obtain a second highlighted frame of video (see paragraphs 0196-0198, where, over time, the detected colors can be switched or blinked in alternating frames, thus the previous determined colors are propagated across future frames);
and present a video including the first highlighted frame of video and the second highlighted frame of video using the display (see paragraphs 0195-0198, where the sequence of frames over time is output).
Regarding claim 18, Kawakami discloses claim 18 as applied to claim 9 above.
Regarding claim 19, Kawakami discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause performance of operations, comprising operations to (see paragraph 0370).
The remainder of claim 19 recites steps identical to those of claim 1. Therefore, Kawakami discloses claim 19 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, Kawakami discloses claim 20 as applied to claim 2 above.
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakami (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0182555-A1) in view of Echevarria et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2022/0148227-A1).
Regarding claim 4, Kawakami fails to disclose the limitations of claim 4.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Echevarria discloses wherein the color for focus peaking highlighting is determined to be rotated 90 degrees from the angle in a plane of the color space with dimensions corresponding to the second component image and the third component image (see paragraphs 0026 and 0053, where changed text color themes can be determined by rotating the text colors 180 degrees for complementary colors, or 90 degrees for accent colors).
Kawakami and Echevarria are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to color correction for improving image readability. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Echevarria into Kawakami by additionally incorporating 90-degree hue rotations because doing so ensures color contrasts that are easy to read or view (see Echevarria paragraphs 0021 and 0031).
Regarding claim 13, Kawakami in view of Echevarria discloses claim 13 as applied to claim 4 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights