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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in a 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.
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: unit that in claim 5.
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 § 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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao (20190239761) in view of Guo ("Dynamic Low-Light Image Enhancement for Object Detection via End-to-End Training").
Regarding claim 1, Tao teaches a method for estimating a heart rate based on a corrected image, the method comprising acquiring a serial image (Fig. 5 and abstract),
extracting a region of interest (ROI) from the acquired serial image (Fig. 3A, pars. 65-69, the subject's face is detected by the Viola-Jones face detection algorithm to define a face area, and Fig. 4A, the ROI is tracked with the KLT algorithm),
converting a color space of the extracted region of interest from an RGB region to a YCbCr region (see figure 2d and par. 63-64), and
estimating a heart rate of a person included in the serial image by analyzing the region of interest (fig. 8 and par. 78).
Tao does not expressly teach calculating a weighted value applied to the serial image by inputting a conversion result into a learning model, and generating a serial image in which the region of interest is corrected by applying the calculated weighted value to the serial image.
Guo teaches calculating a weighted value applied to the serial image by inputting a conversion result into a learning model (see section III. B, "the output exposure map E can be considered as the pixel-wise exposure intensity").
generating a serial image in which the region of interest is corrected by applying the calculated weighted value (equation 3 and section III.B).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Tao a learning-model luminance correction and learning model as taught by Guo. The reason is to improve the image quality and region detection.
Regarding claim 2, see Tao fig. 5 and fig. 3a, pars. 74.
Regarding claim 5, see the rejection of claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tao in view of Guo, and further in view of Wei ("Deep Retinex Decomposition for Low-Light Enhancement”).
Regarding claim 3, Tao teaches dividing the conversion result into a chrominance component and a luminance component in the rejection of claim 1.
Guo teaches inputting the luminance component into a learning model in section III. B.
Wei teaches that the learning model is a Retinex-model and decomposing each of the low-illumination environment image and the general environment image into an illumination component and a reflectance component to perform learning (see sections 1-2).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Guo and Tao the abilitiy have a Retinex decomposition as taught by Wei. The reason is to have enhance low illumination images.
Regarding claim 4, see section 2 and equation 1 of Wei, see section 2 of Wei, denoising, increasing illumination component and using the reflectance and illumination component. Section III.B teaches teaches combining Y’ and the two chrominance components.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee (79590303) uses Retinex algorithm for illumination correction. Park (20210153745) teaches measuring heart rate in based on images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights