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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-5 and 9-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-13 and 18 of U.S. Patent No.12293495. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims 1-5 and 9-19 are broader and obvious in scope than the allowed claims 1-5, 8-18 of the US12293495.
Appl # 18906721 US12293495
Claim 1
Claims 1 and 18
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 9
Claim 1
Claim 10
Claim 8
Claim 11
Claim 9
Claim 12
Claim 10
Claim 13
Claim 11
Claim 14
Claim 12
Claim 15
Claim 13
Claim 16
Claim 14
Claim 17
Claim 16
Claim 18
Claim 17
Claim 19
Claim 15
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 14-15, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by HAYASHI et al. (US20160371821) hereafter HAYASHI.
1. Regarding claim 1, HAYASHI discloses an image processing method (Fig 17, paras 0189-0234 shows and disclose an Image processing method/system) comprising:
acquiring a captured image obtained by imaging (Fig 17 shows an input image (source image), para 0203, 0205 discloses the imaging setting conditions are acquired by the camera body controller 28 meeting the above claim limitations acquiring a captured image obtained by imaging);
generating a first image by correcting a blur component of the captured image (fig 17, the output image from block 42 (i.e generating a first image), para 0192 shows and discloses point image restoration filter (correcting) processing unit which applies restoration corresponding the point spread function of the optical system to the input image data (i.e the blur component of the source (captured) image (see para 0162 which discloses the blur characteristics of the image are expressed as the PSF) and the filtered output image from block 42 meets the limitations of generating a first image by correcting a blur component (filtering) of the captured image); and
generating a second image based on the captured image, the first image, and weight information (fig 17 shows the output image (i.e the generating a second image) based on the captured image (see fig 17 for the flow of the input image), the captured image filtered and output image output from block 42 (i.e the first image) and the weight information (i.e the weight information, U is the restoration intensity (brightness) magnification and V is the sharpening intensity magnification disclosed at para 0200)), wherein the weight information is generated based on (i) information on brightness of the captured image or information on a scene of the captured image (D1: Fig. 17, blocks S and 52, 53, wherein image setting conditions S are input to the automatic intensity adjustment unit 52 that outputs the restoration intensity magnification U, see par. [0180, 0181, 0201, 0210 and 0226], an image scene information is further considered therein, see par. [(0222]) and (ii) information on a saturated area in the captured image (D1: Fig. 17, blocks Q and 52, brightness information Q input to the automatic intensity adjustment unit 52 that outputs the restoration intensity magnification U, pars. [0180-0182, 0232-233]; brightness information Q denotes a saturated pixels of the source image W (i.e a saturated area in the captured image).
2. Regarding claim 3, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the information on the brightness of the captured image is a statistical amount relating to a signal value of the captured image (para 0161 discloses the brightness value of the pixel and the pixel value may be the average value (statistical amount) of the entire image (the captured image) meeting the above claim limitations).
3. Regarding claim 4, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 3, wherein the statistical amount is at least one of a mean value, and (para 0161 discloses the brightness value of the pixel and the pixel value may be the average value (statistical amount as the mean value) of the entire image (the captured image) meeting the above claim limitations, Examiner notes that the specification as filed para 0075 recites at least one of a mean value, a median value, a variance, or a histogram of the signal value. In view of Superguide decision and MPEP 2111.07 the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification and therefore “and” is treated as “or” i.e disjunctive for the purpose of examining the above claim).
4. Regarding claim 5, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the information on the scene of the captured image is information on a type of the scene of the captured image or information on an imaging mode used in the imaging (paras 0023, 0070-0071, 0241 discloses wherein the information on the scene of the captured image is information on a type of the scene (i.e imaging scene is highly bright) of the captured image or information on an imaging mode (scenery imaging mode, portrait imaging mode) used in the imaging).
5. Regarding claim 6, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the information on the saturated area is information indicating a relationship between (i) a range of an area in which an object in the saturated area has been spread by the blur component and (ii) a signal value corresponding to the area (para 0215 discloses “Accordingly, the automatic intensity adjustment unit 52 carries out adjustment such that, if the value of the restoration intensity magnification U (blur component) becomes great, the value of the sharpening intensity magnification V become small, and if the value of the restoration intensity magnification U becomes small, the value of the sharpening intensity magnification V becomes great. However, if the value of the restoration intensity magnification U is excessively great, even if the value of the sharpening intensity magnification V is set to zero “0”, there can be a case where the total sharpness evaluation value C (U,V,x.sub.i,j) is not maintained constant. That is, there can be a restriction on the range of the restoration intensity magnification U in which the total sharpness evaluation value C(U,V,x.sub.i,j) can be maintained constant meeting the above claim limitations).
6. Regarding claim 8, HAYASHI disclose the image processing method according to claim 6, wherein the information on the saturated area is acquired based on the saturated area (pars. [0232-233]; brightness information Q denotes |.a. saturated pixels of the source image W (i.e a saturated area in the captured image) and optical information on an optical system used in the imaging (fig 17, the output image from block 42 (i.e generating a first image), para 0192 shows and discloses point image restoration filter (correcting) processing unit which applies restoration corresponding the point spread function of the optical system to the input image data (i.e the blur component of the source (captured) image (see para 0162 which discloses the blur characteristics of the image are expressed as the PSF) and the filtered output image from block 42 meets the limitations of generating a first image by correcting a blur component (filtering) of the captured image meeting the above claim limitations).
7. Regarding claim 14, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 1, wherein as the brightness of the captured image increases, a weight of the captured image indicated by the weight information increases (paras 0225-0227 discloses the source image W (i.e the captured image) and the brightness value of the region r (i.e the captured image) is high (i.e a weight information increases) meeting the above claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of a weight information are not required by the current claim).
8. Regarding claim 15, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 1, wherein the blur component is based on optical information on an optical system used in the imaging (para 0162 discloses the blur component (i.e the blur characteristics) in the source image as the PSF of the optical system (i.e the optical information of the optical system) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that specifics of the optical information are not required by the current claim).
9. Claim 17 is a corresponding apparatus claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Paras 0314- 0317 discloses at least one processor (computer) performing the tasks (steps or instructions) as claimed in claim 17.
10. Claim 19 is a corresponding non-transitory computer-readable memory medium claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Paras 0314- 0317 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable memory medium storing instructions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYASHI in view HAYASHI (Single reference 103 as the claimed limitation are obvious in view of the teachings in multiple figs/embodiments).
11. Regarding claim 18, HAYASHI discloses an image processing system (Figs 1-3, 17, paras 0058-0060 and 0189-0234 an image processing system) comprising: image processing apparatus according to claim 17 and a controlling apparatus communicable with the image processing apparatus (fig 1 shows the controlling apparatus 80 communicable (i.e communication control) with the image processing apparatus 10 meeting the claim limitations), wherein the controlling apparatus includes at least one processor or circuit configured to execute a plurality of tasks including a transmitting task configured to transmit, to the image processing apparatus (figs 1-2, 17 and paras 0108-0110 shows and discloses wherein the controlling apparatus includes at least one processor or circuit configured to execute a plurality of tasks including a transmitting task configured to transmit, to the image processing apparatus), a request relating to execution of a process on a captured image obtained by imaging (paras 0108-0109 discloses a the computer receives the data such as an image data sent from the camera meeting the above claim limitations), wherein the image processing apparatus includes at least one processor or circuit configured to execute a plurality of tasks (Figs 1-3 shows the computer (i.e the second apparatus which has at least one processor or a circuit) paras 0058-0060, 0108-0110, 0189-0234 and 0314-0317 discloses executing the plurality of tasks) including: a receiving task configured to receive the request (paras 0108-0110 discloses a the computer receives the data such as an image data sent from the camera meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, different figs/embodiments of HAYASHI are combinable. The suggestion/motivation would be a system/method with an improved image quality at para 0030.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYASHI in view of HIASA Norihito (US20180061020) hereafter HIASA.
12. Regarding claim 2, HAYASHI disclose the image processing method according to claim 1. HAYASHI discloses generating the first image by correcting the blur component of the captured image as seen in claim 1. HAYASHI is silent and however fails to disclose wherein in generating the first image, the blur component is corrected by inputting the captured image into a machine learning model.
HIASA discloses wherein in generating the first image, the blur component is corrected by inputting the captured image into a machine learning model (figs 2, 4 and paras 0032, 0035, 0039-0040 discloses generating the corrected image (i.e the generating the first image) in which the blur component (i.e blur correction in the partial image) is corrected using the CNN corresponding to the deep learnings (i.e the machine learning model) meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, HAYASHI and HIASA are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a fast (reduced amount calculation) and increased blur correction effects are obtained in para 0053. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of HIASA in the method of HAYASHI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAYASHI in view of HIASA Norihito, (EP3716146A1) hereafter Norihito.
13. Regarding claim 7, HAYASHI discloses the image processing method according to claim 6. HAYASHI discloses identifying the saturated area in the image as seen in claim 1. HAYASHI is silent and however fails to disclose wherein the information on the saturated area is acquired by inputting the captured image into a machine learning model.
Norihito discloses wherein the information on the saturated area is acquired by inputting the captured image into a machine learning model (Para 0028 discloses identifying the luminance saturated area in the image by inputting the image in the neural network meeting the above claim limitations). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, HAYASHI and Norihito are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be a highly accurate system/method at para 0035. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of Norihito in the method of HAYASHI to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7.
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights