DETAILED ACTION
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 1-20 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.
Claims 1, 12 and 17 (and 2-11, 13-16, 18-20 depending thereon) recite the limitation "the second image " and “the grain film” in “generating a resampled version of the first image including mapping pixels of the first image to different pixels in the second image based at least on a size of the plurality of grains in the grain film to generate the resampled version;”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, because no “second image” or “grain film” is recited in previous limitations. Without clear recitation it is not clear what are the clamed "the second image " and “the grain film” or how they are related to the first/grain image and the “resampled version”. It is also not clear how the resampled version is generated or mapping performed based on the “a size of the plurality of grains in the grain film” for the lack clear recitation.
In addition claims 3-4, 14-15, and 19-20 recite respectively “wherein applying the resampled version to the first image comprises and increasing or decreasing” and “wherein applying the grain image to the first image comprises and increasing or decreasing”. Here the claim language appear incomplete and it is not clear the “and” is typo, or a step is missing before the “increasing or decreasing” step. Therefore intended meaning and scope of the claims are undeterminable.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 12, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry (US 5457491 A), and further in view of Gomila et al (US 20060140278 A1).
RE claim 1, Mowry teaches A method performed by a processing device (abstract, Figs 1, 5), comprising:
obtaining a first image of a sequence of images (abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 line 32);
obtaining a grain image having a plurality of grains (abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 line 42);
generating a resampled version of the first image including mapping pixels of the first image to different pixels in the second image to generate the resampled version (abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 lines 37-41); and
applying the grain image and the resampled version to the first image, resulting in a modified first image with the plurality of grains (abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 lines 42-46).
Mowry is silent RE: the resampling based at least on a size of the plurality of grains in the grain film. However Gomila teaches adjusting the intensity of the pixels based on film grain size, intensity and texture in order to simulating grain effect with improved performance at lower computational cost while preserving quality (see Figs 1-2, abstract, [0027]-[0029] ). This can be equally applied in Mowry effectively simulate the grain effect to generate resampled version with improved performance at lower computational cost.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mowry a system and method wherein the resampling is based at least on a size of the plurality of grains in the grain film, as set above applying Gomila, in order to effectively simulate the grain effect with improved performance at lower computational cost while preserving quality and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 3, Mowry as modified by Gomila teaches wherein applying the resampled version to the first image comprises and increasing or decreasing a visibility of the resampled version in different regions of the modified first image according to a brightness of the first image (Mowry abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 lines 37-46, Gomila Figs 1-2, abstract, [0027]-[0029]).
RE claim 4, Mowry as modified by Gomila teaches wherein applying the grain image to the first image comprises and increasing or decreasing a visibility of the grain image in different regions of the modified first image according to a brightness of the first image (Mowry abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 lines 37-46, Gomila Figs 1-2, abstract, [0027]-[0029]).
RE claim 7, Mowry as modified by Gomila teaches wherein applying the grain image and the resampled version comprises compressing a first color range of the first image to a reduced color range in proportion to a desired granularity, blending the grain image and the resampled version to the first image with the reduced color range, and expanding the reduced color range of the resulting blended first image to the first color range (Mowry abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 lines 37-46, Gomila Figs 1-2, abstract, [0017], [0027]-[0029]).
RE claim 8, Mowry as modified by Gomila teaches further comprising repeating the method for a next image in the sequence of images using a second grain image (Mowry abstract, Figs 1, 5, col 4 lines 37-46, Gomila Figs 1-2, abstract, [0027]-[0029]).
Claims 12, 14-15 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1, 3-4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Mowry teaches A computing device, comprising: a processor coupled to non-transitory computer-readable memory having instructions(abstract Fig 1).
Claims 17, 19-20 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claims 1, 3-4 and therefore rejected under the same rationale. In addition Mowry teaches A non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions (Fig 1).
Claims 2, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry as modified by Gomila, and further in view of Biswas et al (US 20110176058 A1).
RE claim 2, Mowry as modified by Gomila is silent re: wherein applying the resampled version to the first image comprises determining one or more edges in the first image and blending the resampled version with the first image with a reduced a visibility of the resampled version in the modified first image, at the one or more edges.
However Biswas teaches abstract, Fig 2, [0012] to appear to look more natural rather than appearing unnaturally flat due to compression artifacts
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mowry as modified by Gomila a system and method wherein applying the resampled version to the first image comprises determining one or more edges in the first image and blending the resampled version with the first image with a reduced a visibility of the resampled version in the modified first image, at the one or more edges, as suggested by Biswas, in order to appear to look more natural rather than appearing unnaturally flat due to compression artifacts and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claims 13 and 18 recite limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 2 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 5-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry as modified by Gomila, and further in view of Davidson et al (US 20030086603 A1).
RE claim 5, Mowry as modified by Gomila is silent RE: wherein generating the resampled version of the first image includes combining the grain image with a UV map and applying the resulting modified UV map to the first image to map pixels of the first image to different pixels in the second image according to at least the size and a geometry of the plurality of grains.
However Davidson teaches in Figs 26-27, [0012], [0402], [0404] in order to generate a texture map and apply the texture map to the image.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mowry as modified by Gomila a system and method wherein generating the resampled version of the first image includes combining the grain image with a UV map and applying the resulting modified UV map to the first image to map pixels of the first image to different pixels in the second image according to at least the size and a geometry of the plurality of grains, as suggested by Davidson in order to further improve the texturing applying the grain image as the texture and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 6, Mowry as modified by Gomila is silent RE wherein the grain image is determined based on a user input that selects one of a plurality of settings, wherein each of the plurality of settings is associated with at least one of the size of the plurality of grains, a density of the plurality of grains, or a geometry of the plurality of grains.
However Davidson teaches selecting and manipulation texture map and parameter with user interface in [0387], [0394], [0397] etc in order to generate a texture map and apply the texture map to the image. This can be equally applied in Mowry to simulate the grain effect by the user interactively to set the desired size, pattern or intensity.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mowry as modified by Gomila a system and method wherein the grain image is determined based on a user input that selects one of a plurality of settings, wherein each of the plurality of settings is associated with at least one of the size of the plurality of grains, a density of the plurality of grains, or a geometry of the plurality of grains, as set forth above utilizing a GUI as suggested by Davidson in order to allow the user the define the desired size, pattern or intensity of the grain and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
Claim 16 recites limitations similar in scope with limitations of claim 5 and therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mowry as modified by Gomila, and further in view of Oniki et al (US 20150097993 A1).
RE claim 9, Mowry as modified by Gomila is silent RE further comprising: generating a blurred version of the first image; determining a difference between the first image and the blurred version; in response to the difference between the blurred version and the first image being positive, screening the difference over the first image resulting in a screened first image, and blending the screened first image with the first image, resulting in a sharpened image; and combining the sharpened image with modified first image.
However Oniki teaches in abstract, [0004], [0046], [0053]-[0055], [0060]-[0063] etc reducing the asymmetry and further sharpening the image.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to include in Mowry as modified by Gomila a system and method generating a blurred version of the first image; determining a difference between the first image and the blurred version; in response to the difference between the blurred version and the first image being positive, screening the difference over the first image resulting in a screened first image, and blending the screened first image with the first image, resulting in a sharpened image; and combining the sharpened image with modified first image, as suggested by Oniki in order to further improve the quality by reducing the asymmetry and sharpening the image and thereby increasing system effectiveness and user experience.
RE claim 10, Mowry as modified by Gomila and Oniki teaches further comprising: in response to the difference between the blurred version and the first image being negative, negating the difference, inverting the first image, and screening the negated difference over the inverted first image, and inverting the screened inverted first image, resulting in the screened first image that is blended with the first image (Oniki [0060]-[0063]).
RE claim 11, Mowry as modified by Gomila and Oniki teaches wherein determining the difference between the first image and the blurred version comprises subtracting the blurred version from the first image to obtain the difference (Oniki [0053]-[0055], [0060]-[0063]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See attached 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SULTANA MARCIA ZALALEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am-4:30pm.
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, Kent Chang can be reached at (571)272-7667. 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.
/Sultana M Zalalee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2614
Prosecution Insights