DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 10/16/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,198,304. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other pending claims are broader than the patented claims. The instant claims broaden or remove limitations from the patented claims. For example, DCT Block in the patented claims are the pending claims transform block; the DCT Deblur Network channels in the patented claims are the pending processing channels; IDCT block in the patent claims are the inverse transform block; parallel processing unit configured to simultaneously process all channels in the patented claims are is the processing unit configured to process multiple channels in the pending claims; compressions artifacts and motion blur in the patented claims are the broader termed artifacts in the pending claims; convolutional neural network in the patented claims are the broader term neural network in the pending claims; 4x4 DCT in the patented claims is the discrete transform in the pending claims; and the high energy AC or low energy DC in the patented claims is the varying energy levels in the pending claims.
18/917,219 12,198,304
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
13
14
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maharjan (“DCTResNet: Transform Domain Image Deblocking for Motion Blur Images”)
Regarding claims 1, 7, 13, Maharjan discloses a system for image and video processing, comprising:
a computing device comprising at least a memory and a processor; (section I: processing network)
a transform block configured to receive an initial input and output a plurality subband images; (figure 3)
PNG
media_image1.png
559
1238
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a plurality of processing channels, wherein each channel is configured to process a specific frequency component; (figure 3)
PNG
media_image2.png
559
1238
media_image2.png
Greyscale
an inverse transform block configured to receive an input from the processing channels and output a reconstructed image; (figure 3)
PNG
media_image3.png
559
1238
media_image3.png
Greyscale
a processing unit configured to process multiple channels; and (figure 3)
a plurality of programming instructions that, when operating on the processor, cause the computing device to: (figure 3)
transform a degraded input into multiple transformed images; (sections I and II)
PNG
media_image4.png
114
622
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
562
639
media_image5.png
Greyscale
process the transformed images with the processing channels using the processing unit; (Introduction: deblocking in the transform domain can be used as a preliminary stage in the image deblurring process.)
reconstruct the processed transformed images; and
PNG
media_image6.png
163
638
media_image6.png
Greyscale
output a reconstructed output that addresses artifacts in the degraded input. (figure 3)
PNG
media_image7.png
559
1238
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 2 and 8, Maharjan discloses the claimed invention wherein the processing channels comprise a neural network. (abstract; deep neural network called DCTResNet)
Regarding claims 3 and 9, Maharjan discloses the claimed invention wherein the transform block transforms the degraded image using a discrete transform function. (section II, Proposed Method: 4x4 DCT transform)
Regarding claims 4 and 10, Maharjan discloses the claimed invention wherein the transform block transforms the degraded image using a wavelet transform function. (section I, Introduction: Discrete Wavelet Transform DWT)
Regarding claims 5 and 11, Maharjan discloses the claimed invention wherein the transform block creates multiple subband images of varying energy levels. (Introduction: we used 4×4 DCT to decompose the compressed image and subsample the resulting DCT image to create 16 subband images, each channel representing DC, AC1, AC2,..., AC15. DC represents the low-frequency component and has global information of the image. AC1 to AC15 represents high-frequency components of the image.)
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Maharjan discloses the claimed invention wherein further comprising a loss function (section III, B) to compute a domain loss for each channel in the processing channels. (abstract; deblurring processes)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR whose telephone number is (571)270-1092. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Stephen Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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.
/BOBBAK SAFAIPOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights