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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Image Blur Determination Based On Frequency Transform and Excluding Saturated Image Areas
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites “wherein an area of the captured image for calculating the statistic is determined based on whether or not a feature amount based on distance information of the captured image falls within a predetermined range based on the distance information in a focal plane of the captured image.”
This phrase is highly convoluted and likely a result of a poor translation. It is particularly unclear to what the second “based one” refers. For example, is the predetermined range based on the distance information in the focal plane? Or perhaps the feature amount or statistic is based on the distance information in the focal plane. Further, the relationship between the “distance information of the captured image” and the “distance information in a focal plane of the captured image” is unclear. While an attempt has been made to map art onto this claim, such mapping is significantly affected by the unclear nature of claim 5.
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 1-4 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vu {P. V. Vu and D. M. Chandler, "A Fast Wavelet-Based Algorithm for Global and Local Image Sharpness Estimation," in IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 19, no. 7, pp. 423-426, July 2012, doi: 10.1109/LSP.2012.2199980}.
Claim 1
In regards to claim 1, Vu discloses an information processing method {see title, abstract and cites below disclosing an algorithm (method) for determining image sharpness (blur)} comprising:
a conversion step of converting a captured image into first frequency characteristic data {a DWT (discrete wavelet transform) converts the image into the frequency domain. See abstract, Intro and Section II Algorithm discussing the FISH (Fast Image Sharpness) that uses a three-level DWT transform to convert the image into the spectral (frequency) domain (first frequency characteristic data, which also includes the log-energy of the DWT subbands). Se also IIB Local Block-Based FISH that determines local sharpness on a block-by-block basis, also referred to as a sharpness map};
a generation step of generating second frequency characteristic data by excluding data of a predetermined area from the first frequency characteristic data
{Section IIB in which determined the images overall sharpness based taking the root mean square of the 1% largest values of the local sharpness (FISH) indices for each of the respective blocks that comprise the image. The 1% largest values of the local sharpness indices excludes 99% of the smaller values and their corresponding blocks having a sharpness index under this threshold from the overall sharpness calculation}; and
a determination step of determining whether or not the captured image is blurred based on the second frequency characteristic data {see above mapping and explanation for the generating step which determines the overall image sharpness based on the second frequency characteristic data calculated using equation (4)}
wherein in the generation step, the predetermined area is determined according to whether or not the predetermined area falls within a predetermined range based on a statistic obtained based on the first frequency characteristic data {see above, excluded, predetermined areas are determined according to whether their corresponding local-block based FISH is within the 1% largest range of values based on a statistic (e.g. the root mean square or 1% largest value statistic) which is based on the first frequency characteristic data (local FISH)}.
Claim 2
In regards to claim 2, Vu discloses wherein blur of the captured image determined in the determination step includes blur caused by the captured image that is not in focus on an object, and blur caused by movement of an image pickup apparatus during exposure {see above mapping for claim 1 in which the blur determination is agnostic to the source of blur}.
Claim 3
In regards to claim 3, Vu discloses wherein the statistic is obtained based on a first feature amount that is obtained by performing normalizing processing or thresholding processing for the first frequency characteristic data
{see above, excluded, predetermined areas are determined according to whether their corresponding local-block based FISH is within the 1% largest range of values of the first frequency characteristic data (local FISH) such that the 1% range operation is a thresholding processing with respect to the local FISH values}.
Claim 4
In regards to claim 4, Vu discloses wherein the predetermined area is an area in which the first feature amount does not fall within a predetermined range based on the statistic obtained based on the first frequency characteristic data.
{see above, excluded, predetermined areas are determined according to whether their corresponding local-block based FISH is within the 1% largest range (predetermined range) based on the statistic (e.g. root mean square) obtained based on first frequency characteristic data}.
Claim 8
In regards to claim 8, Vu discloses wherein the statistic is at least one of an average value, a median value, and a mode value {see abstract, image sharpness based on weighted average, IIB including equation 4}.
Claim 9
In regards to claim 9, Vu discloses wherein the first frequency characteristic data is generated by performing a wavelet transform or a Fourier transform for the captured image {see above mapping including wavelet transform}.
Claims 10 and 11
The rejection of method claim 1 above applies mutatis mutandis to the corresponding limitations of apparatus claim 10 and computer readable medium claim 11 while noting that the rejection above cites to both device and method disclosures. Further as to the memory and processor of claim 10 and the computer readable storage medium storing program limitations of claim 11 see section III Results discussing and evaluating the processing results of a computer-implemented method including terms such as runtime and memory requirements. See also implementation details in IIID including Intel Quadcore with memory and software including Matlab implementing the methods while noting that Matlab implementations may be typically embodied using computer readable media.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vu and Nakagawa (US 20180249090 A1).
Claim 5
In regards to claim 5, Vu is not relied upon to disclose wherein an area of the captured image for calculating the statistic is determined based on whether or not a feature amount based on distance information of the captured image falls within a predetermined range based on the distance information in a focal plane of the captured image.
Nakagawa is analogous art from the same field of determining image blur. See Fig. 11 including camera sensor 12, distance measuring unit 22, and blurring amount calculating unit 34, [0003]-[0005], [0025]-[0027].
Nakagawa also teaches wherein an area of the captured image for calculating the statistic is determined based on whether or not a feature amount based on distance information of the captured image falls within a predetermined range based on the distance information in a focal plane of the captured image {the blurring amount calculating unit determines blur for the total image by excluding the main subject area based on relative distance information being within a specified range of values. See [0037]-[0046]. Note also the 112(b) rejection.
It 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 to have modified Vu which already determines blur by excluding data of a predetermined area such that additional areas may be excluded from the blur determination for the entire image by calculating the statistic is determined based on whether or not a feature amount based on distance information of the captured image falls within a predetermined range based on the distance information in a focal plane of the captured image as taught by Nakagawa because doing so provides a more accurate blur amount for the background and such that subsequent background blurring can be better provided while also reducing the calculation amount as motivated by Nakagawa, because there is a reasonable expectation of success and/or because doing so merely combines prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Although Vu discloses wherein an area of the captured image for calculating the statistic is determined based on whether or not a feature amount based on a luminance value of the captured image falls within a predetermined range (see above including the 1% rage), this predetermined range is the range of local block-based FISH values not is not based on an average luminance value of the captured image. Moreover, none of the prior art of record discloses or fairly suggest this feature missing from Vu.
Claim 7 depends from claim 6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael R Cammarata whose telephone number is (571)272-0113. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am-5pm 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, Matthew Bella can be reached at 571-272-7778. 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.
/MICHAEL ROBERT CAMMARATA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights