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 .
This office action is in response to communication filed on 8/21/2026. Claim 11 has been added. Claims 1-11 are pending on this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-10 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1 and 10 recite the limitation "among the differences of the of the pixel values computed with respect to the RGB channels". This is interpreted to mean that there are a plurality of difference of pixel values computed. However, in the previous limitation, only one difference of pixel values is computed. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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) 1, 5, 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal (US20160163027) in view of Stein et al (US20130039571).
Regarding claim 1, Gal teaches a method for image enhancement comprising:
receiving an input image (para. [0045]) comprising a plurality of patches in RGB color space, wherein the plurality of patches comprise a first patch (para. [0057]-[0058], the mean calculator 201 calculates local RGB mean values of pixel in a block (e.g., (2n+1)×(2m+1) block, where n and m are positive integers) around the current pixel);
computing a difference of pixel values with respect to each of RGB channels (S33 in fig. 3; para. [0067]-[0068]);
determining a first color channel among the RGB channels having a maximum difference of the pixel values for the first patch (equation 2; para. [0059], [0068]);
processing the first patch according to the maximum difference of the pixel values for the first patch in the first color channel to generate a processed first patch (equation 5; para. [0060], [0062]); and
generating an output image comprising the processed first patch (para. [0063]).
Gal fails to teach computing a difference of pixel values among a first pixel in the first patch and a plurality of neighboring pixels of the first pixel in the first patch; and
determining a first color channel having a maximum difference among the differences of the pixel values computed with respect to the RGB channels for the first patch.
However Stein teaches computing a difference of pixel values among a first pixel in the first patch and a plurality of neighboring pixels of the first pixel in the first patch (para. [0085], The test can comprise a comparison of the color value of the selected pixel to the color values of a preselected number of its neighboring pixels as the seed, for example, the NxN array. The color values comparison can be with respect to multiple color band values (RGB in our example) of the pixel; para. [0224]); and
determining a first color channel having a maximum difference among the differences of the pixel values computed with respect to the RGB channels for the first patch (para. [0223], The expression accumulates the maximum per-channel absolute difference over all the same material constraints in [A]; para. [0224], For example, given a same-material constraint between tokens a & b, the function will only include a term for a color channel with the largest difference in between xca and xcb over color channel c).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Gal and Stein as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Stein into the method of Gal. The motivation to combine Gal and Stein would be to accurately and correctly identify and separate illumination and material aspects of the image (para. [0003] of Stein).
Regarding claim 5, the modified method of Gal teaches a method wherein the step of processing the first patch according to the maximum difference of the pixel values for the first patch in the first color channel to generate the processed first patch comprising:
determining a gain value according to the maximum difference of the pixel values for the first patch (para. [0060] of Gal, correction weight); and
processing the first patch according to the gain value and the pixel values of the first channel to the processed first patch (para. [0063]-[0064] of Gal).
Regarding claim 7, the modified method of Gal teaches a method wherein the gain value is proportional to a value of the maximum difference of the pixel values (para. [0019]-[0020] of Gal).
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as stated above.
Regarding claim 11, the modified method of Gal teaches a plurality of patches (para. [0072] of Gal, an image processor calculates local color mean values around a current pixel of an input image by using input color values of pixels in each predetermined-size region or block around the current pixel of the input image). It would be obvious to perform the computing, determining, and processing steps of claim 1 for at least a second patch included in the plurality of patches.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal (US20160163027) and Stein et al (US20130039571) in view of Cote et al (US20110090380).
Regarding claim 2, the modified method of Gal fails to teach a method wherein before receiving the input image comprising the plurality of patches in the RGB color space, the method further comprises:
receiving a raw image in another color space; and
performing color space conversion on the raw image to generate the input image in the RGB color space.
However Cote teaches receiving a raw image in another color space and performing color space conversion on the raw image to generate the input image in the RGB color space (para. [0011], conversion of the raw image data into an RGB image and/or into a luma image).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Gal and Stein with Cote as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Cote into the method of Gal and Stein. The motivation to combine Cote, Gal and Stein would be to reduce noise from an image (para. [0010] of Cote).
Regarding claim 3, the modified method of Gal fails to teach a method wherein the difference of pixel values among the first pixel in the first patch and the plurality of neighboring pixels of the first pixel in the first patch with respect to each of the RGB channels is a sum of an absolute difference of the pixel values between the first pixel and each of the plurality of neighboring pixels of the first pixel with respect to each of the RGB channels.
However Cote teaches wherein a difference of pixel values among a first pixel in a first patch and the plurality of neighboring pixels of the first pixel in the first patch with respect to each of the RGB channels (para. [0183]) is a sum of an absolute difference of the pixel values between the first pixel and each of the plurality of neighboring pixels of the first pixel (para. [0186]-[0187]) with respect to each of the RGB channels (para. [0171]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Gal and Stein with Cote as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Cote into the method of Gal and Stein. The motivation to combine Cote, Gal and Stein would be to reduce noise from an image (para. [0010] of Cote).
Regarding claim 4, the modified method of Gal fails to teach a method wherein the first pixel is a center pixel of the first patch.
However Cote teaches wherein a first pixel is a center pixel of a first patch (P in fig. 29; para. [0183]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Gal and Stein with Cote as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Cote into the method of Gal and Stein. The motivation to combine Cote, Gal and Stein would be to reduce noise from an image (para. [0010] of Cote).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gal (US20160163027) and Stein et al (US20130039571) in view of Dharur et al (US20200193609).
Regarding claim 8, the modified method of Gal fails to teach a method comprising:
performing motion estimation on the output image comprising the processed first patch.
However Dharur teaches performing motion estimation on an output image comprising a processed first patch (para. [0007], motion vectors can be computed between a previous frame and a current frame (e.g., between the first frame and a frame 2, between a frame 2 and a frame 3, or the like). In one illustrative example, the motion vectors can be computed using optical flow between frames (e.g., using an optical flow API); para. [0072], Each optical flow map can include a two-dimensional (2D) vector field, with each vector being a displacement vector showing the movement of points from a first frame to a second frame).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Gal and Stein with Dharur as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Dharur into the method of Gal and Stein. The motivation to combine Dharur, Gal and Stein would be to accurately and efficiently segment images into foreground and background portions in a timely manner (para. [0004] of Dharur).
Regarding claim 9, the modified method of Gal fails to teach a method further comprising:
performing object detection on the output image comprising the processed first patch.
However Dharur teaches performing object detection on an output image comprising a processed first patch (para. [0008]).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Gal and Stein with Dharur as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the steps of Dharur into the method of Gal and Stein. The motivation to combine Dharur, Gal and Stein would be to accurately and efficiently segment images into foreground and background portions in a timely manner (para. [0004] of Dharur).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LEON VIET Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1185. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 11AM-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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/LEON VIET Q NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights