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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
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:
“a histogram calculator configured to receive an image including a plurality of pixels, split the image into NxN first regions, wherein N is a natural number that is greater than or equal to 2, and calculate NxN histograms for NxN second regions corresponding to the NxN first regions, respectively, wherein each second region is greater than the corresponding first region in claim 12. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as per paragraph [0025] of the specification, the histogram calculator is understood to be implemented via any type of hardware or software.
“a contrast conversion function generator configured to receive the NxN histograms, and generate NxN contrast conversion functions for the NxN first regions based on the NxN histograms” in claim 12. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as per paragraph [0025] of the specification, the contrast conversion function generator is understood to be implemented via any type of hardware or software.
“a result value calculator configured to perform contrast conversion of a current pixel of the plurality of pixels” in claim 12. Furthermore, the examiner notes that as per paragraph [0025] of the specification, the result value calculator is understood to be implemented via any type of hardware or software.
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 § 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1:
Claims 1-20 are directed towards a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter, which is/are statutory subject matter.
Step 2A:
Prong 1:
Claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed to a method, device, and system respectively, for performing contrast conversion. More specifically, the claims generally receive images including a plurality of pixels, and calculate histograms and contrast conversion functions based on the histograms to convert the contrast of pixels. Accordingly, claims 1, 12 and 17 are directed to processing data using different image processing calculations.
Put another way, the claims employ mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information and are directed essentially to a method of calculating using mathematical formulas. Accordingly, the claims are an abstract idea similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as organizing and manipulating information through mathematical correlations in DIGITECH and obtaining and comparing intangible data in CyberSource.
In DIGITECH, the court stated that a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible. DIGITECH, pg. 12. Further in DIGITECH, the court stated that if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.” DIGITECH, pg. 12.
Accordingly, at least in view of DIGITECH, the claims are directed to an abstract idea and are therefore not patent eligible.
MENTAL STEPS DOCTRINE…….
Moreover, the Federal Circuit routinely invokes the “mental steps” doctrine— covering subject matter that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”— to find subject matter ineligible (See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.).
Here, the claims are directed towards a process that could be performed by a human mentally or using a pen and paper. Specifically, a human, mentally or using a pen and paper to perform the steps in the claims.
Just as the Federal Circuit found the map of credit card numbers constructed by a computer system for credit card validation ineligible due to the claim being directed towards a mental or pen and paper performance of the same (See CyberSource at 12), the claims are similarly directed towards a pen-and-paper (or mental) process to. Thus, the claims are directed toward an abstract idea in Step 2A.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS…….
Claim 2 defines further details on the specifics of the size of the regions used in the contrast conversion calculations.
Claim 3 defines distance limitations used in the calculations of the contrast conversion.
Claim 4 defines weighted limitations corresponding to the distance limitations used in the calculations of the contrast conversion
Claims 5 defines the use of reciprocal numbers for the calculations used in the contrast conversion.
Claim 6 defines further limitations using the weights and reciprocal numbers used in the contrast conversion calculations.
Claim 7 defines an equation and variables used in the calculation of a contrast conversion result.
Claim 8 defines the limitations of a variable used in the equation of claim 7 for the calculation of a contrast conversion result.
Claim 9 defines the limitations of a variable used in the equation of claim 7 for the calculation of a contrast conversion result.
Claim 10 defines a position limitation for the determination of the regions used in the contrast conversion calculations.
Claim 11 defines a specific type of function to be used in the contrast conversion calculations.
Claim 13 defines region limitations for the regions used in the contrast conversion calculations.
Claim 14 defines details on the specifics of the size of the regions used in the contrast conversion calculations.
Claim 15 defines weighted limitations corresponding to the distance limitations used in the calculations of the contrast conversion.
Claim 16 defines the addition of a variable that controls an effect of distance and weight used in the calculations of the contrast conversion.
Claim 18 defines the use of reciprocal numbers for the calculations used in the contrast conversion.
Claim 19 defines further limitations to the weight calculations used in the calculations for the contrast conversion.
Claim 20 defines the addition of a variable that controls an effect of distance and weight used in the calculations of the contrast conversion.
Accordingly, claims 2 – 11, 13 – 16, and 18 – 20 do not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea above and are therefore not patent eligible.
Prong 2:
The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. That is, there are no additional element(s) or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. For example, there is no: improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field; use of the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; application of the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(a-c).
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception such as improvements to another technology or technical field, or other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Moreover, the claim language that may be separate from the abstract idea (i.e., additional hardware elements) include the generic hardware elements of image sensors, image processing devices, and circuits.
It is noted that these additional generic hardware elements are simply a conduit for the abstract idea identified above.
Additional hardware elements that are simply a conduit for an abstract idea are not significantly more than the abstract idea. See TLI Communications, pg. 9.
Furthermore, these additional generic hardware elements perform no more than their basic computer function. Generic computer‐implementation of a method is not a meaningful limitation that alone can amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional element considered as an ordered combination, claims modified by adding generic hardware elements are nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of an idea in the general field of computer processing and do not provide significantly more than an abstract idea.
Consequently, the identified additional generic hardware elements taken into consideration individually and in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea above.
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.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Szeliski; Richard (US 6650774 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Szeliski; as disclosed in IDS filed on 09/11/2024).
Regarding independent claim 1, Szeliski teaches:
A method of operating an image processing device, the method comprising: receiving an image including a plurality of pixels; splitting the image into a plurality of first regions (See Col 4, Lines 22 – 52, Col 5 Lines 19 – 57, wherein an image processing device, Computer ‘20’ in figure 2, receives image data (images), from camera ’55’ in figure 2, wherein the image comprises a plurality of pixels, that are split into a plurality of first regions (image patches)).
calculating a plurality of histograms for a plurality of second regions corresponding to the plurality of the first regions, wherein each second region includes the corresponding first region and is greater than the corresponding first region respectively, (See Col 5 Lines 19 – 57, wherein a plurality of histograms for a plurality of second regions corresponding to a plurality of first regions are calculated, being the plurality of histograms created from the averaging the histograms of a first image patch with the histograms of neighboring image patches, wherein the averaged histograms correspond to an image patch and its neighbors, therefore the averaged histogram comes from an area including the first region (first image patch) and is larger than the first region (image patch plus image patch neighbors)).
generating a plurality of contrast conversion functions based on the plurality of histograms for the plurality of first regions (See Col 5 Lines 58 – 67 wherein a plurality of contrast conversion functions are generated based on the plurality of histograms corresponding to the first region (normalized cumulative distribution functions for each image patch and their averaged histogram)).
and converting contrast of a current pixel of the plurality of pixels based on MxM first regions among the plurality of first regions, wherein M is a natural number greater than or equal to 2, and the MxM first regions are adjacent to the current pixel. (See Col 6 Lines 21 – 49, See Col 5 Lines 58 – 67 wherein new pixel brightness levels (contrast conversion) are given to the plurality of pixels based on MxM first regions (neighboring image patches) among the plurality of first regions, wherein M is greater than 2 (number of pixels exhibiting particular brightness level i.e., can be more than 2) and the MxM first regions are adjacent to the current pixel (neighboring pixels used in the blend)).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Szeliski teaches:
The MxM first regions are determined based on a position of the current pixel in a first region, in which the current pixel is included, among the plurality of first regions. (See Col 5 Lines 19 – 57 wherein the MxM first regions are determined based on a position of the current pixel in the first region (image patch neighbors, neighboring the current pixel being the based on position) wherein the pixel is among the plurality of first regions).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Szeliski teaches:
Generating the plurality of contrast conversion functions based on a cumulative distribution function (CDF). (See Col 7 Lines 46 – 67 wherein the plurality of conversion functions is based on a cumulative distribution function).
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 of this title, 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 3, 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Szeliski; Richard (US 6650774 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Szeliski; as disclosed in IDS filed on 09/11/2024) in view of Winn; Stuart (US 8774553 B1; hereinafter simply referred to as Winn; as disclosed in IDS filed on 09/11/2024).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Szeliski does not explicitly disclose:
Converting the contrast of the current pixel comprises converting the contrast of the current pixel based on MxM contrast conversion functions of the plurality of contrast conversion functions and MxM distances wherein the MxM contrast conversion functions correspond to the MxM first regions, and each distance of the MxM distances is a distance between a center of the corresponding MxM first region and the current pixel.
However, Winn teaches of converting the contrast of the current pixel comprises converting the contrast of the current pixel based on MxM contrast conversion functions of the plurality of contrast conversion functions and MxM distances (See Col 8 Lines 25 – 47, Col 3 Lines 24 - 39 wherein converting the contrast (enhancing pixels) of the current pixel (pixel under consideration) is based on MxM contrast conversion functions (cumulative distribution function (CDF) of neighboring tiles) and MxM distances (distances to tiles)).
wherein the MxM contrast conversion functions correspond to the MxM first regions, and each distance of the MxM distances is a distance between a center of the corresponding MxM first region and the current pixel. (See Col 8 Lines 25 – 47, wherein the CDF functions correspond to the MxM first regions (neighboring tiles) and each distance of the neighboring tiles is a distance between a center of the neighboring tiles (MxM first region) and the current pixel (pixel under consideration)).
As taught by Winn knowing the distances between the MxM first region and current pixel allows for a determination of weighting factors for that region (See Col 8 Lines 25 – 47 wherein knowing the distances between the MxM first region and current pixel allows for a determination of weighting factors for that region). As both the teachings of Szeliski and Winn deal with the technical field of image processing regarding contrast conversion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Szeliski with Winn to teach of converting the contrast of the current pixel comprises converting the contrast of the current pixel based on MxM contrast conversion functions of the plurality of contrast conversion functions and MxM distances wherein the MxM contrast conversion functions correspond to the MxM first regions, and each distance of the MxM distances is a distance between a center of the corresponding MxM first region and the current pixel in order to allow for a determination of weighting factors for a region based on distance.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Szeliski in view of Winn teaches:
Calculating MxM weights based on the MxM distances; calculating a result value based on the MxM contrast conversion functions and the MxM weights; and converting the contrast of the current pixel based on the result value. (See Winn Col 8 Lines 25 – 47 wherein MxM weights are calculated based on MxM distances (weighted average from 2 closest tiles), calculating a result value based on MxM contrast conversion functions and MxM weights (CDF weight average value) and converting the contrast of the current pixel based on result value (pixel under consideration contrast transformation based on weighted CDF average value)).
Regarding independent claim 17, Szeliski teaches:
An image processing system comprising: an image sensor configured to output image data including a plurality of pixels (See Col 4, Lines 22 – 52, Col 5 Lines 19 – 57, wherein an image processing system, Computer ‘20’ in figure 2, receives image data (images), from camera/sensor ’55’ in figure 2)
a histogram configured to split the image data into NxN first regions, wherein N is natural number, and calculate a plurality of histograms for a second region that is greater than a first region of the NxN first regions (See Col 5 Lines 19 – 57, wherein a plurality of histograms for a second regions corresponding to a plurality / NxN of first regions (image patches) are calculated, being the plurality of histograms created from the averaging the histograms of a first image patch with the histograms of neighboring image patches, wherein the averaged histograms correspond to an image patch and its neighbors, therefore the averaged histogram comes from an area including the first region (first image patch) and is larger than the first region (image patch plus image patch neighbors)).
a contrast conversion function generation circuit (See Col 3 Lines 53 – 67, Figure 2, processing unit ‘21‘ in figure 2) configured to receive the plurality of histograms, and generate a contrast conversion function for each first region of the NxN first regions based on the plurality of histograms (See Col 5 Lines 58 – 67 wherein a plurality of contrast conversion functions are generated based on the plurality of histograms corresponding to each of the first plurality / NxN regions (normalized cumulative distribution functions for each image patch and their averaged histograms)).
Szeliski does not explicitly disclose a result value calculation circuit configured to perform contrast conversion of a current pixel of the plurality of pixels, wherein performing the contrast conversion comprises calculating a result value based on the NxN contrast conversion functions and HxH weights of HxH first regions among the NxN first regions, wherein H is natural number that is greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to N, and the HxH first regions are adjacent to the current pixel.
However, Winn teaches of a result value calculation circuit (See Col 3 Lines 24 – 58 processor, for implementing the result value calculation and contrast conversion) configured to perform contrast conversion of a current pixel of the plurality of pixels, wherein performing the contrast conversion comprises calculating a result value based on the NxN contrast conversion functions and HxH weights of HxH first regions among the NxN first regions, wherein H is natural number that is greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to N, and the HxH first regions are adjacent to the current pixel. (See Col 8 Lines 25 – 47, Col 3 Lines 24 – 39, wherein contrast conversion of a current pixel (pixel enhancement transformation of pixel under consideration) of the plurality of pixels is performed, wherein performing the contrast conversion comprises calculating a result value based on the NxN contrast conversion functions and HxH weights (CDF weighted average value from closest image tiles’ CDF values) of HxH first regions among the NxN first regions, wherein H is natural number that is greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to N, and the HxH first regions are adjacent to the current pixel (weighted average comprising two CDF values from the four closest tiles (adjacent to current pixel), of the plurality of tiles that make up the image, being the NxN first regions).
As taught by Winn deciding weights for regions around the pixel of interest allows for different regions at different distances to have more or less weight when it comes to performing the contrast conversion calculation. (See Col 8 Lines 25 – 47 wherein deciding weights for regions around the pixel of interest allows for different regions at different distances to have more or less weight when it comes to performing the contrast conversion calculation). As both the teachings of Szeliski and Winn deal with the technical field of image processing regarding contrast conversion, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Szeliski with Winn to teach a result value calculation circuit configured to perform contrast conversion of a current pixel of the plurality of pixels, wherein performing the contrast conversion comprises calculating a result value based on the NxN contrast conversion functions and HxH weights of HxH first regions among the NxN first regions, wherein H is natural number that is greater than or equal to 2 and less than or equal to N, and the HxH first regions are adjacent to the current pixel in order for weights for regions around the pixel of interest at different distances to have more or less weight when it comes to performing the contrast conversion calculation.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and is as follows:
U.S. Patent Application No. US 20210045704 A1 (Kondo) discloses contrast conversion using histogram equalization using histograms of pixel groups wherein neighboring pixel groups are used in the histogram equalization. (Kondo [0059])
Furthermore please See attached PTO-892.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (703)756-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm ET.
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, John M Villecco can be reached at (571) 272-7319. 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.
/ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2661
/AARON W CARTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2661
Prosecution Insights