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.
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: processing system in claim 10.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-18 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 1 and 10 recites “at least one reference region” followed “the reference region”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 5-6, 9, 14, 15, 18 recites ”the reference region”. This is rejected under similar reasoning as claim 1 above.
Claims 7,8, 16-17 recite “the system resources”. This limitation lacks antecedent basis.
Claims 4, 7, 8, 13,16, 17 recites ‘defining the input image to a plurality”. It is not clear what Applicant means by defining. For purpose of Examination, the Examiner is treating this as “dividing” and “partitioning”.
Claim 6, 9, 15, 18 recites “deciding a second reference size of the reference region before the steps (a) and (b)” If this limitation were placed before step (a) the reference region would lack antecedent basis.
Claim 2 and 11 recites “improving edge artifacts”. The claim is not clear if Applicant means to increase or decrease edge artifacts.
Claims 7 and 9 recites “wherein the step(a) … function”. Both these claims depend on claim 6 which states “wherein the step (a) reduced the second reference size to the first reference size based on the computational resource or the task types”. It is unclear if the wherein clause in claims 7 and 9 are additive or meant to replace. If it is meant to be additive, the claim should use the word “further” after the (a)
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under similar grounds as claims 7 and 9 above.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea (mental process) without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
1.An image processing method, applied to an image processing device, comprising:
“(a) deciding a first reference size of at least one reference region of an input image based on a computational resource of the image processing device or task types of tasks which are being processed by the image processing device; and”, which is directed to a mental process, for example a person could decide a reference size based on a computational resource
“(b) processing at least portion of the input image based on the reference region to generate a processed image.”, which is directed to an additional element, which is well understood, routine and conventional and additionally recited at a high level of generality.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-9 do not contain additional element which amount to significantly more. The limitations “defining”, “deciding” are directed to a mental process
Claims 10-18 are rejected under similar grounds as claims 1-9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anti by “Exact Tile-Based Segmentation Inference for Images Larger than GPU Memory” hereafter referred to as Bacjsy
Bacjsy discloses 1.An image processing method, applied to an image processing device, comprising:
(a) deciding a first reference size of at least one reference region of an input image based on a computational resource of the image processing device or task types of tasks which are being processed by the image processing device; and (b) processing at least portion of the input image based on the reference region to generate a processed image. (Bajcsy, pg. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
158
592
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where the tile size is selected so the halo border is included in the image will fit into the GPU memory; where the inference reads on the processing; additionally the cropping could also reads on the processing as well as segmentation in Fig. 1)
Bacjsy discloses 2. The image processing method of claim 1, wherein the step (b) further comprises: improving edge artifacts generated while processing the input image. (see claim 1; Fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
252
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
, whereby allowing a halo border the edge artifacts are improved (removed))
Bacjsy discloses 3. The image processing method of claim 2, wherein the step (b) enhances the at least portion of the input image based on the reference region. (see claim 2)
Bacjsy discloses 4. The image processing method of claim 1, further comprising: defining the input image to a plurality of the reference regions respectively with the first reference size, wherein at least portion of the reference regions are overlapped. (Bajcsy, Abstract, “Our approach is to select a tile size that will fit into GPU memory with a halo border of half the network receptive field. Next, stride across the image by that tile size without the halo. The input tile halos will overlap, while the output tiles join exactly at the seams. Such an approach enables inference to be performed on whole slide microscopy images, such as those generated by a slide scanner.”)
Bacjsy discloses 5.The image processing method of claim 1, further comprising: deciding a processing region comprising a target region of the input image and the reference region; and processing the target region according to the reference region. (see claim 1, the halo region + the object reads on a processing region, the segmentation shown in claim 2 reads on the processing)
Bacjsy discloses 6. The image processing method of claim 1, further comprising: deciding a second reference size of the reference region before the steps (a) and (b), wherein the second reference size is larger than the first reference size; wherein the step (a) reduces the second reference size to the first reference size based on the computational resource or the task types. (see claim1, where the second reference size is the size of the image which is reduced to the first reference size based on memory)
Bacjsy discloses 7. The image processing method of claim 6, further comprising: defining the input image to a plurality of the reference regions respectively with the second reference size before the steps (a), and (b); wherein the step (a) defines the input image to a plurality of the reference regions respectively with the first reference size according to the system resources or the task types; wherein portions of the reference regions are overlapped. (see claim 6 above, where the image is split into tiles)
Bacjsy discloses 8. The image processing method of claim 1, further comprising: defining the input image to a first number of the reference regions respectively before the steps (a) and (b); wherein the step (a) defines the input image to a second number of the reference regions according to the system resources or the task types, wherein the first number is larger than the second number; wherein portions of the reference regions are overlapped. (see claim 7 above)
Bacjsy discloses 9. The image processing method of claim 6, further comprising: deciding a second processing region comprising a target region of the input image and the reference region with the second reference size before the steps (a) and (b); and wherein the step (a) decides a first processing region comprising the target region and the reference region with the first reference size, wherein the second processing region is larger than the first processing region. (see claim 6 above, th e second processing region reads on the entire image)
Claim 10 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 1.
Claim 11-18 is rejected under similar grounds as claim 2-9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GANDHI THIRUGNANAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3261. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5PM.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
/GANDHI THIRUGNANAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights