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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: an information processing unit, an output unit, a history information holding unit, in claims 1, 18 and 19; an input image holding unit in claim 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 8-11, 15-16 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al (US Pub. 2022/0067419) in view of TAO et al (US Pub. 2020/0349680).
With respect to claim 1, Yoo discloses An image processing apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory having instructions that, when executed by the processor, performs operations as, (see figure 1):
an information processing unit; and an output unit, wherein in a case where the information processing unit is in operation and history information held in a history information holding unit is available, the information processing unit is configured to execute information processing using an input image and the history information held in the history information holding unit to generate an information-processed image, and update the history information held in the history information holding unit (see paragraph 0069, wherein …At time T(2), the image processing apparatus may extract a feature 622 of a second partial processing region by inputting pixel data 621 of the second partial processing region into a CNN, and update a hidden vector 624 corresponding to a hidden state of an RNN by converting the feature 622 into a 1D vector 623 and inputting the 1D vector 623 into the RNN. A hidden state of an RNN may be updated based on input data and a hidden state at a previous time…), and the output unit is configured to output the information-processed image (see paragraph 0040, wherein …FIG. 1 illustrates an example of an operation of an image processing apparatus. Referring to FIG. 1, an image processing apparatus 110 performs image processing on an input image frame 120 and outputs an image processing result according…),
wherein in a case where the information processing unit is in operation and the history information held in the history information holding unit is unavailable, the information processing unit is configured to regenerate history information based on the input image, execute information processing using the input image and the regenerated history information to generate an information-processed image, and update the history information held in the history information holding unit, and the output unit is configured to output the information-processed image (see paragraph 0068, wherein …Referring to FIG. 6, at time T(1), an image processing apparatus extracts a feature 612 of a first partial processing region by inputting pixel data 611 of the first partial processing region into a CNN, and updates a hidden state of an RNN by converting the feature 612 into a 1D vector 613 and inputting the 1D vector 613 into the RNN. The feature 612 may correspond to an encoded feature, and a hidden vector 614 may correspond to the hidden state of the RNN updated at time T(1)…), and [wherein in a case where the information processing unit is suspended, the output unit is configured to output the input image], as claimed.
However, Yoo fails to explicitly disclose wherein in a case where the information processing unit is suspended, the output unit is configured to output the input image, as claimed.
Tao teaches wherein in a case where the information processing unit is suspended, the output unit is configured to output the input image, (this limitation is read as there is no processing for the image and therefore, the input and output is same, see paragraph 0057, wherein …In this embodiment, a non-linear convolution after a dimension reduction convolutional layer or a dimension raising convolutional layer in the encoding and decoding network is replaced with the residual unit, which ensures that quantities of residual units in each spatial dimension in the encoding network or the decoding network are the same…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of processing a digital image. Teaching of Tao to have same input and output if the processing is suspended can be incorporated into Yoo’s system as suggested in figure 1, the input image frame is same as the output if the image processing apparatus is not operative, for suggestion, and modifying the system yield the predictable results, for motivation.
With respect to claim 2, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein in a case where no history information is held in the history information holding unit, the history information is determined to be unavailable, (this read as if there is no history in the holding unit then there is nothing available as history, which simply means that there is no data in the memory, which is in Yoo paragraph 0068 for time T(1)), as claimed.
With respect to claim 3, combination of Yoo and Tao discloses all the elements as claimed and as rejected in claim 1 above. However, they fail to explicitly disclose in a case where the history information held in the history information holding unit cannot be updated, the history information holding unit is configured to delete the history information, as claimed.
But, it is a design choice to have the history holding unit to be updated or not to be updated depending upon the data utilization. Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention simply utilize the design choice to implement the updating of the data into the history information holding unit to yield the predictable results.
With respect to claim 8, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein the history information indicates an image subjected to information processing performed by the information processing unit, (see Yoo paragraph 0049, wherein …The image processing apparatus 110 may sequentially process the pixel data of the partial processing regions 121 to 12K using the CNN 111 and the RNN 112…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 9, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein an input image holding unit is configured to hold the input image, (see Yoo paragraph 0053, wherein …a memory may be used for each partial processing region, rather than for the entire frame, and thus, the memory usage may be reduced. For example, a memory to store an input feature map corresponding to the entire frame is required if the entire frame is to be processed, whereas only a memory to store an input feature map corresponding to each partial processing region is required if each partial processing region is to be processed…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 10, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein the input image holding unit is configured to hold at least a number of input images to be used for the information processing unit to regenerate history information, (see Yoo paragraph 0053 wherein …a memory may be used for each partial processing region, rather than for the entire frame, and thus, the memory usage may be reduced. For example, a memory to store an input feature map corresponding to the entire frame is required if the entire frame is to be processed, whereas only a memory to store an input feature map corresponding to each partial processing region is required if each partial processing region is to be processed…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 11, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein the input image holding unit is configured to hold at least a number of input images corresponding to a number of latencies in the information processing unit, (see Yoo paragraph 0053 wherein …a memory may be used for each partial processing region, rather than for the entire frame, and thus, the memory usage may be reduced. For example, a memory to store an input feature map corresponding to the entire frame is required if the entire frame is to be processed, whereas only a memory to store an input feature map corresponding to each partial processing region is required if each partial processing region is to be processed…), as claimed.
With respect to claim 15, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein the information processing is noise removal processing, super-resolution processing, sharpening processing, fog/haze removal processing, and dark area emphasis processing, (see Yoo paragraph 0057), as claimed.
With respect to claim 16, combination of Yoo and Tao further discloses wherein the information processing unit is configured to execute the information processing using a recurrent neural network, (see Yoo Abstract), as claimed.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections for claim 1, because claims 18 and 19 are claiming subject matter of similar scope as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo et al (US Pub. 2022/0067419) in view of TAO et al (US Pub. 2020/0349680) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ostertun (US Pub. 2023/0315325).
With respect to claim 3, combination of Yoo and Tao discloses all the elements as claimed and as rejected in claim 1 above. However, they fail to explicitly disclose wherein the history information holding unit is configured to hold an update flag indicating that the history information is to be updated or that the history information is not to be updated, and wherein with reference to the update flag, in a case where the history information is to be updated, the history information is determined to be unavailable, and in a case where the history information is not to be updated, the history information is determined to be available, as claimed.
Oustertun teaches the history information holding unit is configured to hold an update flag indicating that the history information is to be updated or that the history information is not to be updated, and wherein with reference to the update flag, in a case where the history information is to be updated, the history information is determined to be unavailable, and in a case where the history information is not to be updated, the history information is determined to be available, (see paragraph 0043, wherein … The system can determine in which stage of the memory update process the tearing event occurred by establishing a memory update flag in memory where the flag is set (e.g., to a value of ‘1’) after the backup file has been completed. The flag can then be cleared (e.g., set to a value of ‘0’) when the memory update is completed…), as claimed.
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the effective date of invention to combine the two references as they are analogous because they are solving similar problem of processing a digital image. Teaching of Oustertun to have a flag that gets updated can be incorporated into Yoo’s system as suggested in figure 12 numerical 120 Memory, for suggestion, and modifying the system yield the predictable results for tracking the memory storage information, for motivation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5-7, 12-14 and 17 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIKKRAM BALI whose telephone number is (571)272-7415. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-3:00PM.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/VIKKRAM BALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights