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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows: The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/588,184, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The application fails to disclose
“ converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image;”
“comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation;” and
“generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing.”
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Re claim 1
The limitation of receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, receiving in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at image and receiving them mentally.
The limitation of “converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image; ” belongs in the mathematical concept abstract idea grouping. The conversion of a signal from the spatial domain to the frequency is a mathematical concept.
The limitation of comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making the comparison.
The limitation of and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating a score.
The claim does not contain additional features which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are significantly more because the claim does not contain additional features.
Re claim 2 The limitation of wherein converting the first image and the second image comprises: applying a set of filters to the first image and the second image to generate a plurality of sub bands for the first image and the second image, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition in for example the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 3 The limitation of wherein subbands in the plurality of subbands represent different frequencies from the first image and the second image, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition for example the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 4 The limitation of wherein subbands in the plurality of subbands include a plurality of directions, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition for example the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 5 The limitation of wherein the plurality of directions captures different orientations of components in the first image and the second image, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition for example the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 6 The limitation of wherein the set of filters comprises a steerable pyramid that includes different scales and directions, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition for example the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 7 The limitation of wherein the set of filters comprises a steerable pyramid that includes different scales and directions, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition for example the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 8 The limitation of “wherein converting the first image and the second image from the spatial domain to the frequency domain comprises: generating first frequency domain representations for the plurality of subbands for the first image and second frequency domain representations for the plurality of subbands for the second image” belongs in the mathematical concept abstract idea grouping. The conversion of a signal from the spatial domain to the frequency is a mathematical concept.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 9 The limitation of selecting a portion of the plurality of subbands, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, selecting in the context of this claim encompasses the user selecting the subband.
The limitation of “generating first frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands for the first image and second frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands for the second image” belongs in the mathematical concept abstract idea grouping. The conversion of a signal from the spatial domain to the frequency is a mathematical concept.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 10 The limitation of wherein first frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands and the second frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands are used to generate the score, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, using in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally using the frequency domain representation to generate the score.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 11 The limitation of comparing the first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to the second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation comprises: comparing a first noise power spectrum of the first frequency domain representation to a second noise power spectrum of the second frequency domain representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the comparison.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 12 The limitation of comparing a first plurality of first distribution of frequency components for a plurality of subbands of the first frequency domain representation to a second plurality of first distribution of frequency components for the plurality of subbands of the second frequency domain representation to generate a plurality of comparison values, wherein the score is based on the plurality of comparison values, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the comparison.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 13 The limitation of combining the plurality of comparison values to generate the score, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, combining in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally combining the scores.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 14 The limitation of wherein comparison values in the plurality of comparison values are weighted using weights that are determined based on an analysis of characteristics of the first image to determine an importance of subbands in the plurality of subbands., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, weighting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally weighting the comparison values.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 15 The limitation of performing an action based on the score., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, performing an action in the context of this claim encompasses the user performing a mental action.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 16 The limitation of wherein performing the action comprises: adjusting a parameter of a process that was used to generate film grain for the second image., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, adjusting a parameter in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally adjusting a parameter.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 17
The limitation of receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, receiving in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at image and receiving them mentally.
The limitation of “converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image” belongs in the mathematical concept abstract idea grouping. The conversion of a signal from the spatial domain to the frequency is a mathematical concept.
The limitation of comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making the comparison.
The limitation of and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating a score.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable to perform both the steps. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer readable medium performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer readable medium to both the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Re claim 18 The limitation of wherein converting the first image and the second image comprises: applying a set of filters to the first image and the second image to generate a plurality of sub bands for the first image and the second image, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition in particular the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 19 The limitation of wherein the set of filters comprises a steerable pyramid that includes different scales and directions, as drafted, is a process that corresponds to a mathematical concept of sub band decomposition in particular the mathematical operation of generating of a steerable pyramid as described in the specification in paragraphs 50-55. This element is drawn to the mathematical concepts abstract idea grouping.
The analysis with respect to integration into an abstract idea and significantly more has not significantly changed from the claim from which this claim depends.
Re claim 20
The limitation of receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, receiving in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at image and receiving them mentally.
The limitation of “converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image; ” belongs in the mathematical concept abstract idea grouping. The conversion of a signal from the spatial domain to the frequency is a mathematical concept.
The limitation of comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally making the comparison.
The limitation of and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally generating a score.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element – A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable to perform both the steps. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer readable medium performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer readable medium to both the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional elements – An apparatus comprising: one or more computer processors; and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to be operable to perform both the steps. The processor and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor and generic computer readable medium performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a processor and a computer readable medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shekter US 20020034337 A1.
Re claim 1 Shekter discloses
A method comprising:
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain (see figure 1 c and paragraph 29 note that a source image and a reference image are input);
converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image (see paragraph 73 note that the PSD is crated for each channel of the reference image and the source image using the discrete Fourier transform [i.e. transform into frequency domain] );
comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation (see paragraph 73 note the PSD generated by the frequency distribution are subtracted this determines a difference which could be considered a comparison);
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing. (see paragraph 73 note the PSD generated by the frequency distribution are subtracted the clipped subtraction could constitute the score);
Re claim 11 Shekter discloses wherein comparing the first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to the second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation comprises: comparing a first noise power spectrum of the first frequency domain representation to a second noise power spectrum of the second frequency domain representation (see paragraph 73 “For each channel of the source image, the noise ACF is converted to a noise PSD by means of a discrete Fourier transform 1205 and similarly for the noise ACF 1206 of each channel of the reference image. The source noise PSDs are then subtracted from the corresponding reference PSDs 1207” note that the noise PSD is the power spectrum of the noise and they are compared by subtraction).
Re claim 15 Shekter discloses performing an action based on the score (see paragraph 73 “the resulting differenced PSDs for each channel undergo an element-wise square root 1208 followed by an inverse DFT 1209 and then normalization to unity power 1210. This results in a set of convolution kernels for each channel” note that filtering kernels are obtained from the difference )
Re claim 16 Shekter discloses adjusting a parameter of a process (see paragraph 73 “the resulting differenced PSDs for each channel undergo an element-wise square root 1208 followed by an inverse DFT 1209 and then normalization to unity power 1210. This results in a set of convolution kernels for each channel” note that filtering kernels are obtained from the difference) that was used to generate film grain for the second image (see paragraph and paragraph 72 note that process is used to simulate film grain in the source image).
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by X. Meng, W. Zhang, S. Labrozzi. “AHG13: Frequency domain Film Grain Objective Metrics”. JVET-AF0209, 32nd JVET meeting, Hannover, Oct. 2023, 8 pgs (Cited in the IDS on 9/18/2024).
Re claim 1 Meng discloses
A method comprising:
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain (see section 2.1 figure 2 note that the reference image and the test image correspond to the first and second image);
converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image (see figure 2 and section 2.1 2.2 note that space domain to frequency domain conversion is performed on both the reference and test image.);
comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation (see section 2.3 note that the similarity is calculated between the noise power spectrum of each band and direction between the reference image and the test image);
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing (see section 2.3 and 2.4 note that the score is calculated by evaluating the JS divergence between the poser spectrum of the sub band of the reference and test images).
Re claim 2 Meng discloses wherein converting the first image and the second image comprises: applying a set of filters to the first image and the second image to generate a plurality of subbands for the first image and the second image (see section 2.2 and figure 3 note that filter are used to create the steerable pyramid for frequency domain conversion).
Re claim 3 Meng discloses wherein subbands in the plurality of subbands represent different frequencies from the first image and the second image (see figure 4 note that the subbands comprise different directions and different frequencies).
Re claim 4 Meng discloses wherein subbands in the plurality of subbands include a plurality of directions (see figure 4 note that the subbands comprise different directions and different frequencies).
Re claim 5 Meng discloses herein the plurality of directions capture different orientations of components in the first image and the second image. (see figure 4 note that the subbands comprise different directions and orientation and different frequencies).
Re claim 6 Meng discloses wherein the set of filters comprises a steerable pyramid that includes different scales and directions (see section 2.2 note that that the set of filters are a steerable pyramid which divide the image into sub bands of various scales and directions).
Re claim 7 Meng discloses wherein converting the first image and the second image comprises after applying the set of filters, converting the plurality of subbands from the first image and the second image from the spatial domain to the frequency domain. (see section 2.2 note that the FFT is performed in the steerable pyramid to generate frequency distributions for each subband)
Re claim 8 Meng discloses wherein converting the first image and the second image from the spatial domain to the frequency domain comprises: generating first frequency domain representations for the plurality of subbands for the first image and second frequency domain representations for the plurality of subbands for the second image. (see section 2.2 note that the FFT is performed in the steerable pyramid to generate frequency distributions for each subband ).
Re claim 9 Meng discloses wherein converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain comprises: selecting a portion of the plurality of subbands; and generating first frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands for the first image and second frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands for the second image. (see section 2.2 note that the FFT is performed in the steerable pyramid to generate frequency distributions see also section 2.2 last paragraph note that the highest frequency band may be chosen to input into the FFT).
Re claim 10 Meng discloses, wherein first frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands and the second frequency domain representations for the portion of the plurality of subbands are used to generate the score. (see section 2.2 and 3.3 note that the FFT is applied to the subbands and directions and the score is determined by calculating the JS divergence of the power spectrum of band and direction)
Re claim 11 Meng discloses wherein comparing the first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to the second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation comprises: comparing a first noise power spectrum of the first frequency domain representation to a second noise power spectrum of the second frequency domain representation. (see section 2.2 and 3.3 note that the FFT is applied to the subbands and directions and the score is determined by calculating the JS divergence of the noise power spectrum of band and direction).
Re claim 12 Meng discloses wherein comparing the first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to the second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation comprises: comparing a first plurality of first distribution of frequency components for a plurality of subbands of the first frequency domain representation to a second plurality of first distribution of frequency components for the plurality of subbands of the second frequency domain representation to generate a plurality of comparison values (see section 2.2,2.3 and 2.4 note that the FFT is applied to the subbands and directions and the score is determined by calculating the JS divergence of the noise power spectrum of band and direction which creates a plurality of scores score0-score N), wherein the score is based on the plurality of comparison values (see section 2.4 note that the score is the average of the individual scores).
Re claim 13 Meng disclose wherein generating the score comprises: combining the plurality of comparison values to generate the score. (see section 2.4 note that the score is the average of the individual scores).
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shekter US 2002/0034337 in view of Radosavljevic US 20240323453.
Re claim 17 Shekter discloses A method comprising:
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain (see figure 1 c and paragraph 29 note that a source image and a reference image are input);
converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image (see paragraph 73 note that the PSD is crated for each channel of the reference image and the source image using the discrete Fourier transform [i.e. transform into frequency domain]);
comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation (see paragraph 73 note the PSD generated by the frequency distribution are subtracted this determines a difference which could be considered a comparison);
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing. (see paragraph 73 note the PSD generated by the frequency distribution are subtracted the clipped subtraction could constitute the score);
Shetker does not expressly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable for: Radosavljevic discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable (see paragraph 129 and 128 note that the invention is implemented with a memory storing software and a processor). The motivation to combine is to implement the method using computers see paragraph 128. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shetker and Radosavljevic to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 20 Shekter discloses
A method comprising:
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain (see figure 1 c and paragraph 29 note that a source image and a reference image are input);
converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image (see paragraph 73 note that the PSD is crated for each channel of the reference image and the source image using the discrete Fourier transform [i.e. transform into frequency domain]);
comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation (see paragraph 73 note the PSD generated by the frequency distribution are subtracted this determines a difference which could be considered a comparison);
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing. (see paragraph 73 note the PSD generated by the frequency distribution are subtracted the clipped subtraction could constitute the score);
Shetker does not expressly disclose An apparatus comprising: one or more computer processors; and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to be operable for Radosavljevic discloses An apparatus comprising: one or more computer processors; and a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions for controlling the one or more computer processors to be operable for: (see paragraph 129 and 128 note that the invention is implemented with a memory storing software and a processor). The motivation to combine is to implement the method using computers see paragraph 128. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Shetker and Radosavljevic to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over X. Meng, W. Zhang, S. Labrozzi. “AHG13: Frequency domain Film Grain Objective Metrics”. JVET-AF0209, 32nd JVET meeting, Hannover, Oct. 2023, 8 pgs (Cited in the IDS) in view of Radosavljevic US 20240323453.
Re claim 17 Meng discloses
A method comprising:
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain (see section 2.1 figure 2 note that the reference image and the test image correspond to the first and second image);
converting the first image and the second image from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the first image and a second frequency domain representation of the second image (see figure 2 and section 2.1 2.2 note that space domain to frequency domain conversion is performed on both the reference and test image.);
comparing a first distribution of frequency components from the first frequency domain representation to a second distribution of frequency components from the second frequency domain representation (see section 2.3 note that the similarity is calculated between the noise power spectrum of each band and direction between the reference image and the test image);
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the comparing (see section 2.3 and 2.4 note that the score is calculated by evaluating the JS divergence between the poser spectrum of the sub band of the reference and test images).
Meng does not expressly disclose A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable for: Radosavljevic discloses A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored thereon computer executable instructions, which when executed by a computing device, cause the computing device to be operable (see paragraph 129 and 128 note that the invention is implemented with a memory storing software and a processor). The motivation to combine is to implement the method using computers see paragraph 128. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meng and Radosavljevic to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 18 Meng discloses wherein converting the first image and the second image comprises: applying a set of filters to the first image and the second image to generate a plurality of subbands for the first image and the second image (see section 2.2 and figure 3 note that filters are used to create the steerable pyramid for frequency domain conversion).
Re claim 19 Meng discloses wherein the set of filters comprises a steerable pyramid that includes different scales and directions (see section 2.2 note that that the set of filters are a steerable pyramid which divide the image into sub bands of various scales and directions).
Cited Art
The following is a listing of cited art considered relevant but not applied in a rejection above:
Edgar US 6792162 B1 discloses One aspect of the invention is a method of automatically enhancing a digital image. The magnitudes of grain traces are measured in at least two segments in the digital negative and the digital negative is enhanced using the magnitudes of the grain traces measured in the at least two segments. (see abstract).
Djelouah US 20250095115 A1 discloses In some embodiments, a grain analysis system is configured for analyzing a first video frame and outputting respective first film grain information for film grain that is included in the first video frame or configured for analyzing a second video frame and outputting second film grain information. At least one of a grain removal system and a grain synthesis system is included. The grain removal system is configured for removing the film grain from the first video frame using the first film grain information to generate a third video frame corresponding to the first video frame with film grain removed. The grain analysis system is separate from the grain removal system. The grain synthesis system is configured for synthesizing film grain for the third video frame using the first film grain information or the second film grain information. The grain analysis system is separate from the grain synthesis system. (see abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN T MOTSINGER whose telephone number is (571)270-1237. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Chineyere Wills-Burns can be reached at (571) 272-9752. 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.
/SEAN T MOTSINGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights