Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, analyzing in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image to determine texture
The limitation of selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation, 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 mentally selecting regions
The limitation of “converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in 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 generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and 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, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user evaluating the differences and determining 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 the first texture representation is based on a texture of content in the first image, or the second texture representation is based on the texture of content in the second image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, texture representation in the context of this claim encompasses a mental representation of texture content.
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 analyzing the first image or the second image comprises: detecting variations in content in the first image to determine the first texture representation or content in the second image to determine the second texture representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, detecting in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally detecting variations in content.
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 performing edge detection on content in the first image to determine the first texture representation or the second image to determine the second texture representation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, performing edge detection in the context of this claim encompasses the user identifying edges in the image.
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 analyzing the first image or the second image comprises: comparing a characteristic of a plurality of regions to a threshold; and adding a region to the set of regions when a respective characteristic meets the threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing and adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the comparing and then mentally adding the regions to a mental set of regions.
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 comparing a luma value of a region to a first threshold and a second threshold; and adding the region to the set of regions when the luma value is in between the first threshold and the second threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing and adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing values and mentally adding to a set of regions.
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 comparing a variance of a region to the threshold; and adding the region to the set of regions when the variance is greater than the threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing and adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally comparing values and mentally adding to a set of regions.
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 determining a first portion of regions that is classified as non-texture regions; determining a second portion of regions that is classified as texture regions; and adding the first portion of regions to the set of regions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining and adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the determinations of regions and mentally adding to a set of regions.
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 not adding the second portion of regions to the set of regions., as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, not adding the second portion of regions to the set of regions. in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally not adding the regions.
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: regions in the second portion of regions include more detected edges than regions in the first portion of regions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, detecting edges and determining regions in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally detecting edges and determining regions.
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 wherein a region in the set of regions comprises a block, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, the regions being blocks in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining block shaped regions.
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 generating a set of scores for the set of regions; and combining the set of scores to determine the score for the assessment of differences of the film grain, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, generating a set of scores and combining the sores in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining scores and mentally combining them.
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 wherein scores in the set of scores are weighted based on respective ratings of regions in the set of regions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, weighting the scores in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally determining weighted 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 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 mentally performing an 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 15 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 determining an adjusted 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 16
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 analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, analyzing in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image to determine texture
The limitation of selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation, 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 mentally selecting regions
The limitation of “converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in 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 generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and 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, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user evaluating the differences and determining 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 17 the limitation of the first texture representation is based on a texture of content in the first image, or the second texture representation is based on the texture of content in the second image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, texture representation in the context of this claim encompasses a mental representation of texture content.
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 18 the limitation of wherein analyzing the first image or the second image comprises: comparing a characteristic of a plurality of regions to a threshold; and adding a region to the set of regions when a respective characteristic meets the threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, comparing and adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the comparing and then mentally adding the regions to a mental set of regions.
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 determining a first portion of regions that is classified as non-texture regions; determining a second portion of regions that is classified as texture regions; and adding the first portion of regions to the set of regions, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, determining and adding in the context of this claim encompasses the user mentally performing the determinations of regions and mentally adding to a set of regions.
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 analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, analyzing in the context of this claim encompasses the user looking at the image to determine texture
The limitation of selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation, 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 mentally selecting regions
The limitation of “converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in 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 generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and 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, generating in the context of this claim encompasses the user evaluating the differences and determining a score.
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) 1-3, 5, 6 8, 9 11 14 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shekter US 2002/0034337.
Re claim 1 Shetkar discloses
A method comprising:
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain; (see fig 1C source image and reference image see also paragraph 29)
analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of samples are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation (see paragraph 34 and 35 regions with low variance and little detail i.e. little texture are determined see figure 1c note that noise variance see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the second image; (see paragraph 42 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to demine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207)
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and the second frequency domain representation ( see paragraph 73 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to determine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207 the subtracted value could be a score indicating and assessment of difference).
Re claim 2 Shekter discloses the first texture representation is based on a texture of content in the first image, or the second texture representation is based on the texture of content in the second image (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of sample are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images).
Re claim 3 Shekter discloses detecting variations in content in the first image to determine the first texture representation or content in the second image to determine the second texture representation (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of sample are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images).
Re claim 5 Shekter discloses wherein analyzing the first image or the second image comprises: comparing a characteristic of a plurality of regions to a threshold (see paragraph 33 “the average and standard deviation of all pixels in all samples taken are computed, and those regions whose average value is greater than one standard deviation from the overall average are eliminated” note that the threshold is within one standard deviation); and adding a region to the set of regions when a respective characteristic meets the threshold (see paragraph 33 “the average and standard deviation of all pixels in all samples taken are computed, and those regions whose average value is greater than one standard deviation from the overall average are eliminated” note that the threshold is one standard deviation and those regions not eliminated are kept).
Re claim 6 Shekter discloses comparing a luma value of a region to a first threshold and a second threshold; and adding the region to the set of regions when the luma value is in between the first threshold and the second threshold (see paragraph 33 “the average and standard deviation of all pixels in all samples taken are computed, and those regions whose average value is greater than one standard deviation from the overall average are eliminated” note that the threshold is within one standard deviation).
Re claim 8 Shekter discloses determining a first portion of regions that is classified as non-texture regions (see paragraph 35 note that region of constant color, i.e. containing no texture, are kept, the remaining regions are discarded); determining a second portion of regions that is classified as texture regions (see paragraph 35 note that region of constant color, i.e. containing no texture, are kept; the remaining regions are discarded and could be consider texture regions); and adding the first portion of regions to the set of regions (see paragraph 35 only constant regions are kept).
Re claim 9 Shekter discloses not adding the second portion of regions to the set of regions. (see paragraph 35 note that region of constant color, i.e. containing no texture, are kept; the remaining regions are discarded).
Re claim 11 Shekter discloses wherein a region in the set of regions comprises a block (see paragraph 32 “In practice squares of sizes 16 to 32 pixels are large enough to produce good noise estimates while remaining small enough in most cases to fit within several different approximately constant regions of the source image” a square of pixels is a block).
Re claim 14 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 15 Shekter discloses adjusting a parameter of a process (see paragraph 7 “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 72 note that process is used to simulate film grain in the source image).
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) 4, 10 and 16-20 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 4 Shekter does not expressly disclose performing edge detection on content in the first image to determine the first texture representation or the second image to determine the second texture representation. Radosavljevic discloses performing edge detection on content in the first image to determine the first texture representation or the second image to determine the second texture representation (see paragraph 68 “It means that an additional pre-processing, e.g., edge detection or detection of complex texture regions 402, may also be performed in the pre-processing step 100 to obtain a mask image. In such a way, information on the image complexity is obtained, and film grain parameters are typically estimated only on flat and low-complexity parts of an image (indicated by the mask).”) note that edge detection is performed to determine flat regions. The motivation to combine is “more precise estimation of the film grain parameters is performed” (see paragraph 68). 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 Shekter and Radosavljevic to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 10 Shekter does not expressly disclose regions in the second portion of regions include more detected edges than regions in the first portion of regions. Radosavljevic discloses regions in the second portion of regions include more detected edges than regions in the first portion of regions (see paragraph 68 “It means that an additional pre-processing, e.g., edge detection or detection of complex texture regions 402, may also be performed in the pre-processing step 100 to obtain a mask image. In such a way, information on the image complexity is obtained, and film grain parameters are typically estimated only on flat and low-complexity parts of an image (indicated by the mask).”) note that edge detection is performed to determine flat regions. The motivation to combine is “more precise estimation of the film grain parameters is performed” (see paragraph 68). 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 Shekter and Radosavljevic to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 16 Shetkar discloses
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain; (see fig 1C source image and reference image see also paragraph 29)
analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of samples are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation (see paragraph 34 and 35 regions with low variance and little detail i.e. little texture are determined see figure 1c note that noise variance see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the second image; (see paragraph 42 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to demine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207)
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and the second frequency domain representation ( see paragraph 73 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to determine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207 the subtracted value could be a score indicating and assessment of difference).
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 17 Shekter discloses the first texture representation is based on a texture of content in the first image, or the second texture representation is based on the texture of content in the second image (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of sample are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images).
Re claim 18 Shekter discloses wherein analyzing the first image or the second image comprises: comparing a characteristic of a plurality of regions to a threshold (see paragraph 33 “the average and standard deviation of all pixels in all samples taken are computed, and those regions whose average value is greater than one standard deviation from the overall average are eliminated” note that the threshold is within one standard deviation); and adding a region to the set of regions when a respective characteristic meets the threshold (see paragraph 33 “the average and standard deviation of all pixels in all samples taken are computed, and those regions whose average value is greater than one standard deviation from the overall average are eliminated” note that the threshold is one standard deviation and those regions not eliminated are kept).
Re claim 19 Shekter discloses determining a first portion of regions that is classified as non-texture regions (see paragraph 35 note that region of constant color, i.e. containing no texture, are kept, the remaining regions are discarded); determining a second portion of regions that is classified as texture regions (see paragraph 35 note that region of constant color, i.e. containing no texture, are kept; the remaining regions are discarded and could be consider texture regions); and adding the first portion of regions to the set of regions (see paragraph 35 only constant regions are kept).
Re claim 20 Shetkar discloses
receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain; (see fig 1C source image and reference image see also paragraph 29)
analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of samples are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation (see paragraph 34 and 35 regions with low variance and little detail i.e. little texture are determined see figure 1c note that noise variance see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the second image; (see paragraph 42 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to demine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207)
and generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and the second frequency domain representation ( see paragraph 73 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to determine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207 the subtracted value could be a score indicating and assessment of difference).
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) 1, and 12 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 filed 9/18/20204) in view of Shekter US 2002/0034337.
Re claim 1 Meng discloses
A method comprising: receiving a first image and a second image for a comparison of film grain 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.);
generating a score for an assessment of differences of the film grain in the first image and the second image based on the first frequency domain representation and the second frequency domain representation (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 analyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image
selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation
converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the second image;
Shekter discloses nalyzing the first image or the second image to determine a first texture representation of the first image or a second texture representation of the second image (see paragraph34 and 35 a large number of sample are taken and variance are which is a measure of texture is determined note that variance is a measure of detail i.e. texture in the image see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
selecting a set of regions based on the first texture representation or the second texture representation ( see paragraph 34 and 35 regions with low variance and little detail i.e. little texture are determined see figure 1c note that noise variance see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images);
converting the set of regions from a spatial domain to a frequency domain to generate a first frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the first image and a second frequency domain representation for the set of regions in the second image; ( see paragraph 42 and figure 1c note that a dft of the extracted noise samples is generated to demine a power spectrum of the noise which is that compared via subtraction see also paragraph 12 elements 1207)
The motivation to combine is “This step is the key to the whole noise extraction process and relies upon the following observation: in regions of constant color, a perfect image reproduction system would produce pixels with zero variance. Thus, in a noisy image, the variance in such constant-color regions must be entirely due to noise. Regions of the image which contain image detail as well as noise can only have higher variance than those of constant color. Hence, the process of selecting the samples with the lowest variance is guaranteed to keep samples of constant color if such exist, or the best approximations thereto if such do not exist” (See paragraph 35). One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily adapted the method of Meng to be applied to the uniform regions as described in Shekter. 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 Shekter to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Re claim 12 Meng further discloses generating a set of scores for; and combining the set of scores to determine the score for the assessment of differences of the film grain. Shelter further discloses the set of regions ( see paragraph 34 and 35 regions with low variance and little detail i.e. little texture are determined see figure 1c note that noise variance see figure 1c and paragraph 29 note that noise analysis is performed on both the reference and source images).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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 Shekter US 2002/0034337 in view of Edgar US 6771833 B1.
.
Re claim 13 Meng and Shekter do not expressly disclose wherein scores in the set of scores are weighted based on respective ratings of regions in the set of regions. Edgar discloses wherein scores in the set of scores are weighted based on respective ratings of regions in the set of regions (see column 12 lines 15-20 “Having estimated the grain strength according to one set of calculations, a second set of formulas may be used to determine a "weight" value for each segment…. the weight value provides a confidence level that the calculated grain strength (noise) is actually a measurement of grain traces and not of image detail). One of ordinary skill in the art could have weighted the calculation of Meng according to the likelihood the section was uniform. The motivation to combine is “provides a confidence level that the calculated grain strength (noise) is actually a measurement of grain traces and not of image detail”). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Meng and Shekter with Edgar to reach the aforementioned advantage.
Cited Art
The following is a listing of cited art considered relevant but not applied in a rejection above:
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)
GUIONNET US 20210344968 A1 discloses A method of method of processing an image includes: determining estimates of parameters of an auto-regressive, AR, parametric model of noise contained in the image, according to which a current noise pixel is computed as a combination of a linear combination of P previous noise pixels in a causal neighborhood of the current noise pixel weighted by respective AR model linear combination parameters (φ.sub.1, . . . , φ.sub.P) with a generated noise sample corresponding to an additive Gaussian noise of AR model variance parameter (σ), generating a noise template of noise pixels based on the estimated AR model parameters, wherein the noise template is of a predetermined pixel size smaller than the pixel size of the image, determining an estimate (σ.sub.P) of a variance of the noise template, and based on a comparison of the estimated variance (σ.sub.P) with a predetermined threshold (T.sub.σ), correcting the AR model variance parameter (σ).(see abstract)
Llach US 20070036452 A1 discloses Simulation of film grain in an image can occur by compressing a video image, then transmitting compressed video together with a message containing at least one parameter indicative of the original film grain, to a decoder, and restoring the original grainy appearance of images by having the decoder simulating film grain based on the content of the film grain message. To improve efficiency, one or more parameters of film grain information undergo scaling in accordance with a target pixel block size for pixel blocks in the image. Such scaling allows for the use of conventional circuitry for performing block-based operations in connection with the film grain simulation. (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