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 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 6 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 6 recites the limitation "corresponding to at least one of the high-luminance region and the edge region of the first training image". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 image acquisition unit, a first image generation unit, a second image generation unit, a training unit in claim 7.
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 Objections
Claim 11 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are allowed.
Regarding claims 1 and 7: the claims require: generating a third training image by enlarging a first training image by interpolation; generating a fourth training image having different sharpness for different regions based on the second, higher resolution training image, the interpolation enlarged third training image, and at least one threshold defined region in the first training image; and training a machine learning model based on the first training image and the fourth training image. The threshold defined region is either a first region having a luminance value equal to or greater than a predetermined value or a second region having a luminance change rate equal to or greater than a predetermined rate.
the closes prior art includes:
Kulikov et al., US 2022/0198610 A1, discloses paired low resolution source image data and corresponding high resolution target image data. Kulikov further interpolates the low resolution image to the size of the high resolution image and calculates a high frequency residual by subtracting the interpolated low resolution image from the high resolution target image. See Kulikov ¶¶ [0058]–[0059] and [0075]–[0081], and Figs. 5–6. Kulikov, however, trains its system to reproduce or otherwise process the high frequency residual. Kulikov does not generate a fourth ground truth training image having region dependent sharpness according to a threshold qualified luminance or luminance change region of the first, low resolution training image.
Oniki, US 2021/0279851 A1, discloses generating an adjusted ground truth image having different blur or sharpness at different image positions. Oniki may divide an original image into regions according to luminance values or generate a correction map based on variation in the luminance of the original image. See Oniki ¶¶ [0031] and [0087]–[0093], and Figs. 12–13B. Oniki, however, generates the adjusted ground truth image by applying different blur amounts to an original image. Oniki does not generate that ground truth image based on an actual image obtained by interpolation enlargement of the corresponding low resolution training image. Further, Oniki determines its luminance or luminance variation regions from the original image, rather than from the claimed first, low resolution training image.
Chou et al., US 2020/0294196 A1, discloses training a neural network to learn residual values between target image data and directionally scaled image data. Chou also discloses identifying features, such as strong edges, and blending more or less of the neural network residual into a super resolution output according to the identified feature. See Chou ¶¶ [0083]–[0087] and [0097]–[0099]. Chou’s feature responsive blending is used in generating the processed output image after training. Chou does not disclose using that blending operation to generate a ground truth training image before training the machine learning model.
Adams et al., US 2013/0177242 A1, discloses determining an edge magnitude and comparing that magnitude with an edge threshold value. When the threshold is satisfied, Adams selectively increases sharpening in the corresponding edge region. See Adams ¶¶ [0077]–[0081] and Figs. 8–11. Adams does not disclose generating machine learning training labels or constructing a training image from a corresponding high resolution image and an interpolation enlarged low resolution image.
The references, considered individually or collectively, therefore do not teach or suggest: determining the claimed luminance or luminance change based region in the first, low resolution training image; generating, according to that region, a fourth training image based jointly on both the corresponding higher resolution second training image and the actual interpolation enlarged third training image; and using the resulting region dependent sharpness fourth training image as the training target for the machine learning model.
Reaching the claimed method/apparatus from the cited references would require relocating Chou’s output stage blending operation into training label generation, substituting Kulikov’s interpolation enlarged low resolution image for Oniki’s disclosed blur generation mechanism, relocating Oniki’s region determination from the original image to the low resolution first training image, and repurposing Adams’s edge threshold sharpening operation as a control for training target construction. The cited prior art does not provide a reasonable basis for making this coordinated sequence of modifications. Accordingly, the prior art of record does not render the subject matter of claim 1 obvious as a whole.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WASSIM MAHROUKA whose telephone number is (571)272-2945. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/WASSIM MAHROUKA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2665
Prosecution Insights