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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a non-Final office action in merits. Claims 1-18, as originally filed, are presently pending and have been elected and considered below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9/17/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2023-166226, filed on 09/27/2023 and JP2024-090281, filed on 06/03/2024.
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 7, 10-16 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.
Claim 7 recites: “The image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, the ratio for combining the color signals is lower when the noise of the input image is greater.” In which “the parameter” is lack of antecedent basis. There exist three parameters. It is not clear which one “the parameter” refers to.
Furthermore, the claim language is ambiguous and unclear. It is not clear how the ratio for combining the color signal is lower being measured or determined against and what the noise of the input image being greater being compared to. When no clear criterion or condition being provided which the action in claimed limitation being relied upon, the action becomes indefinite.
Claim 10 recites: “The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, the control amount is set and the parameter is changed so that the second parameter and the third parameter approach a target value of the parameter to be changed.” In which “the parameter” is lack of antecedent basis.
Again, claim 1 recites a first parameter, a second parameter, and a third parameter. The parameter recited in claim 10 is ambiguous as to which parameter being changed. Claim 10 therefore renders indefinite.
Claims 11-13 depend from claim 10 and are rejected with the same reason.
Claim 14-16 are rejected with the same reason as set forth in claim 10-13.
Claim 16 recites: “The image processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, at least one of the second parameter and the third parameter is obtained from the reference data on a basis of an average value of gain values of images of a plurality of frames.” The claim language is ambiguous and unclear as to what exactly “an average value of gain values of images of a plurality of frames” is referring to. Claim 16 is therefore not weighted until further clarification.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-11, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2022/0107378 A1, Dey et al. (hereinafter Dey).
As to claim 1, Dey discloses an image processing apparatus comprising:
one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to:
execute image processing of an obtained input image via a trained model including a first parameter obtained by training on an image noise characteristic (Figs 1A-1B, acquire an input image and a noise image, the input image being processed using a trained neural network according to the input and the noise image; pars 0105, 0130, 0162, parameters associated with trained neural network),
reduce noise of an input image subjected to the image processing via a second parameter (Figs 1A-1B, the image processing including a neural network produces a denoised image (e.g. noise reduction of the input image); pars 0004-0007, 0021, 0112, noise reduction with selected strength settings for input and noise images);
combine the input image and an input image with the noise reduced on a basis of a third parameter (Figs 1A-1B, 7A-7B; pars 0108, 0119, 0136, 0143, the images being combined with respect to set scales between the two images); and
in a case of changing one of the first parameter, the second parameter, and the third parameter, change and set a parameter to be changed on a basis of one of a control amount and preset reference data across a plurality of input images successively obtained (Figs 1A-1B, 7A-7B; pars 0029-0030, 0038, 0102, 0108, 0127, 0162, 0192, selecting of any parameters or settings change characteristics of input image and the noise image, a loss function (e.g. control amount) would be generated and a neural network would be trained/updated until desirable denoise performance being achieved). Note an ordinary skill in the art would understand parameters here represent characteristics of input image and/or noise image and it would have been obvious that the neural network would be retrained or updated in light of such change of characteristics to obtain desired denoising performance.
As to claim 3, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second parameter is a parameter indicating a strength of reducing the noise (pars 0004-0007, 0021, 0112, noise reduction with selected strength settings for input and noise images).
As to claim 4, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the third parameter is a ratio for combining the input image with the noise reduced and the input image (pars 0108, 0119, 0136, 0143, the images being combined with respect to set scales between the two images).
As to claim 5, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the third parameter is a ratio for combining a brightness signal of the input image with the noise reduced and a brightness signal of the input image (pars 0030, 0108, 0119, 0260, 0305, intensity or brightness scales within combined images).
As to claim 6, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the third parameter is a ratio for combining a color signal of the input image with the noise reduced and a color signal of the input image (Fig 10; pars 0165, the noise related to color variation/scales within images).
As to claim 7, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, the ratio for combining the color signals is lower when the noise of the input image is greater (pars 0119, 0129, 0165).
As to claim 8, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in the image processing, in a case where two systems of trained models based on the first parameter are provided and a first trained model is in-use, the first parameter of a second trained model is changed using the control amount across a plurality of input images, and the one or more processors further execute the instructions to combine, on a basis of a combining ratio, an input image output with noise reduced after image processing by the first trained model and an input image output with noise reduced by the noise reducing unit after image processing by the second trained mode (Fig 7B, generator neural network and discriminator neural network represent two training models executed/processed by one or more processors and the generator is still in used when discriminator being trained, therefore parameters are being updated; the control amount or denoise performance being are obtained when denoised image being finalized and output; pars 0157-0160, 0162-0163).
As to claim 9, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein in the combining, the image is combined on a basis of the combining ratio that transitions in conjunction with transition progress of the first parameter being changed (Fig 7B; pars 0015, 0088-0091, 0108, 0119, 0136-0138, , 0143, 0202, 0205, images being combined with scales in conjunction of transformation and/or reconstruction of the image).
As to claim 10, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, the control amount is set and the parameter is changed so that the second parameter and the third parameter approach a target value of the parameter to be changed (Figs 20C, 21-22; pars 0004-0010, 0030, 0105, 0108, 0119, target range of parameters).
As to claim 11, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 10, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, in a case where one of the first parameter and the target value is to be changed, the first parameter, the second parameter, and the third parameter are changed on a basis of the control amount (Figs 1B, 7B; pars 0127, 0162, 0169, parameters being adjusted with respect to loss function, which alternately finalize denoise process with corresponding control amount).
As to claim 14, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, at least one of the second parameter and the third parameter is obtained from pre-stored reference data and set (pars 0018, 0029, 0044, 0108, a plurality of noise images may be generated and scaled prior to imaging the subject and combined for training or denoising, i.e. pre-stored).
As to claim 17, it is a method claim necessitated claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
As to claim 18, it recites a non-transitory CRM storing programs executed in performing functions and features of claim 1. Rejection of claim 1 is therefore incorporated herein.
Claims 2, 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dey in view of US2021/0150674 A1, Cai et al. (hereinafter Cai).
As to claim 2, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose the first parameter is a parameter of a neural network of a result of training on a noise characteristic in information relating to a camera that captured the input image. Cai, in the same or similar field of endeavor, further teaches an image captured by a camera may comprise noise that needs to be reduced (pars 0003, 0032, 0036, 0042, noise associated with a camera). Therefore, consider Dey and Cai’s teachings as a whole, it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the filing date of invention to incorporate Cai’s teachings in Dey’s apparatus to mitigate the noise from the image captured by a camara.
As to claim 15, Dey discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 14, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, at least one of the second parameter and the third parameter is obtained from the reference data on a basis of an average value of gain values of images of a plurality of frames (Cai: pars 0042, 0053, 0055, scales of adjacent frames).
As to claim 16, Dey as modified discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in setting the parameter to be changed, at least one of the second parameter and the third parameter is set on a basis of information relating to a camera obtained from a camera that captured the input image (Cai: pars 0032, 0036, 0039, 0051).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13 are 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 and overcoming 35 USC 112(b) rejection.
Reasons for Allowance
Prior art of record (Dey and Cai) neither discloses alone nor teaches in combination functions and features recited in claim 12. Claim 13 depends from claim 12.
Examiner’s Note
Examiner has cited particular column, line number, paragraphs and/or figure(s) in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the reference(s) in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUN SHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7927. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 8:30-5:50 PT.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on 571-272-3382. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUN SHEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights