DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/23/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 21 and 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 in view of Chen et al. (US 20130243104) (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding claim 1,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12101478 Claim 21
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
a filter circuit configured to:
a filter circuit configured to:
apply a filter to a first pixel p(x,y) adjacent to a virtual boundary in an image, wherein x is a coordinate on an x-axis of the image, and wherein y is a coordinate on a y-axis of the image;
apply a filter to a first pixel p(x,y) adjacent to a virtual boundary in an image, wherein x is a coordinate on an x-axis of the image, and wherein y is a coordinate on a y-axis of the image;
replicate a value for a pixel p(x-1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y); and
replicate a value for a pixel p(x-1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y),
compute a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x-1,y+1); and
wherein the filter circuit is configured to compute the first filtered pixel value based on the value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated values for the pixel p(x-1,y-1) and for the pixel p(x-1,y+1).
a display configured to display the image.
a display configured to display the image.
Although claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 does not specify the pixel value being computed based on all of the listed other pixel values, Chen paragraph 4-5, 101, 147 teaches the values of particular pixels in a first filter being determined, which, in combination with a pixel value being computed based on multiple pixel values, renders obvious determining a pixel value with only one of the pertinent pixel values, since claim 21, for its dependency on earlier claims, teaches determining pixel values with only one replicated value. 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 the invention disclosed by claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 with the values of particular pixels in a first filter being determined of Chen in order to determine pixel values with only one replicated value.
Claim(s) 2-8 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 1.
Regarding claim 9,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12101478 Claim 22
A system comprising:
A system comprising:
a filter circuit configured to:
a filter circuit configured to:
apply a filter to a first pixel p(x,y) adjacent to a virtual boundary in an image, wherein x is a coordinate on an x-axis of the image, and wherein y is a coordinate on a y-axis of the image;
apply a filter to a first pixel p(x,y) adjacent to a virtual boundary in an image, wherein x is a coordinate on an x-axis of the image, and wherein y is a coordinate on a y-axis of the image;
replicate a value for a pixel p(x+1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x+1,y); and
replicate a value for a pixel p(x+1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x+1,y),
compute a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x+1,y+1);
wherein the filter circuit is configured to compute the first filtered pixel value based on the value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated values for the pixel p(x-1,y-1), for the pixel p(x+1,y-1), and for the pixel p(x+1,y+1).
a display configured to display the image.
a display configured to display the image.
Although claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 does not specify the pixel value being computed based on all of the listed other pixel values, Chen paragraph 4-5, 101, 147 teaches the values of particular pixels in a first filter being determined, which, in combination with a pixel value being computed based on multiple pixel values, renders obvious determining a pixel value with only one of the pertinent pixel values, since claim 22, for its dependency on earlier claims, teaches determining pixel values with only one replicated value. 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 the invention disclosed by claim 22 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 with the values of particular pixels in a first filter being determined of Chen in order to determine pixel values with only one replicated value.
Claim(s) 10-15 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 9.
Regarding claim 16,
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12101478 Claim 21
A method comprising:
A system comprising:
applying a filter to a first pixel p(x,y) adjacent to a first virtual boundary in an image, wherein x is a coordinate on an x-axis of the image, and wherein y is a coordinate on a y-axis of the image;
apply a filter to a first pixel p(x,y) adjacent to a virtual boundary in an image, wherein x is a coordinate on an x-axis of the image, and wherein y is a coordinate on a y-axis of the image;
replicating a value for a pixel p(x-1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y); and
replicate a value for a pixel p(x-1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y),
computing a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x-1,y+1)
wherein the filter circuit is configured to compute the first filtered pixel value based on the value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated values for the pixel p(x-1,y-1) and for the pixel p(x-1,y+1).
Although claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 does not specify the pixel value being computed based on all of the listed other pixel values, Chen paragraph 4-5, 101, 147 teaches the values of particular pixels in a first filter being determined, which, in combination with a pixel value being computed based on multiple pixel values, renders obvious determining a pixel value with only one of the pertinent pixel values, since claim 21, for its dependency on earlier claims, teaches determining pixel values with only one replicated value. 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 the invention disclosed by claim 21 of U.S. Patent No. 12101478 with the values of particular pixels in a first filter being determined of Chen in order to determine pixel values with only one replicated value.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected for their dependence on claim(s) 16.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under non-statutory double patenting rejections as detailed above, but would be allowable if those rejections were overcome, due to containing subject matter allowable for similar reasons as noted in parent application 18/386314 (US 12101478).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 1 contains the limitations regarding replicating a value for a pixel p(x-1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y), then computing a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x-1,y+1). Claim 9 contains the limitations regarding replicating a value for a pixel p(x+1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x+1,y), then computing a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x+1,y+1). Claim 16 contains the limitations regarding replicating a value for a pixel p(x-1,y+1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y), then computing a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x-1,y+1). At the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation. The claim(s) depending on these claim(s) contain allowable subject matter for the reasons concerning these claim(s).
The closest prior art, Chen et al. (US 20130243104), Lim et al. (US 20140355695), Ikeda et al. (US 20140086501), Park et al. (US 20140023136), Huang et al. (US 20130322523), Ikai (US 20130251051), Song et al. (US 20130215960), Dong et al. (US 20130114732), Chong et al. (US 20130044809), Chong et al. (US 20120213291), Bennett (US 20120044987), Pajaniradja et al. (US 20110208795), Mizuno (US 20100303374) either singularly or in combination fail to anticipate or render obvious the above described limitations. The notice of allowance for parent case 18/386314 cites, “The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to teach Claims 1-10 and 21-22, alone or in reasonable combination, which specifically comprise the following limitations (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
- replicate a value for a pixel p(x-1,y-1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y); and - compute a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x-1,y-1).
The prior art fails to teach Claims 1115 and 23, alone or in reasonable combination, which specifically comprise the following limitations (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
- replicate a value for a pixel p(x+1,y-1) from a value of a pixel p(x+1,y); and - compute a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x+1,y-1).
The prior art fails to teach Claims 1620, alone or in reasonable combination, which specifically comprise the following limitations (in consideration of the claim as a whole):
- replicating a value for a pixel p(x-1,y-1) from a value of a pixel p(x-1,y); and - computing a first filtered pixel value based on a value of the first pixel p(x,y) and further based on the replicated value for the pixel p(x-1,y-1).
The closest prior art, Ikeda et al. (US 20140086501 A1) and AAPA reveal a similar system and technique as discussed in the office actions in the parent application (application #: 16899653), but fail to anticipate or render obvious, either singularly or in combination with the other cited references, the above limitations (as combined with the other claimed limitations).” Examiner continues this line of reasoning, noting that the prior art, including Chen and Ikeda, which represent the best prior art, may teach replicating and determining values for filtered pixels, but are silent with regard to teaching about the locations of the replicated and filtered pixels relative to the X, Y coordinates. Since that is the substantive content of the allowance for the parent case, the current cases claims contain allowable subject matter for the same reason. Therefore, at the time of the effective filing date of the application, these limitations had not been fully anticipated and it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine elements of the prior art to meet this limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Matthew D Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-3527. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30am - 5:30pm EST.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached at (571) 272-7383. 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.
/MATTHEW DAVID KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483