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 Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a processor” at line 9 should read “the processor”. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 10-11, 13-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL1 (Machine Learning Hackathon: Detecting Filters in Images, Lachie N, Dec 2 2024, pages 1-17) hereafter NPL1 in view of YANAGIHARA et al., (US20190339885) hereafter YANAGIHARA.
1. Regarding claim 1, NPL1 discloses a method, the method (page 1, 3 shows and discloses an idea of detecting filters in images using trained CNN) discloses comprising:
identifying, using a filter detection system, content of an image that is accessible via a digital platform and that is being viewed via a display device (pages 9, 12-15 shows an discloses identifying, using a filter detection system (i.e filters detected), content of an image that is accessible via a digital platform (i.e random cat on Instagram (i.e digital platform) image meeting the limitations of content of an image that is accessible via a digital platform) and that is being viewed via a display device (i.e the display of input image on the left, the output image on the right and the bottom part shows the filters detected) meeting the claim limitations, examiner notes that the specifics of the digital platform, a filter detection system are not required by the current claim));
detecting, using an artificial intelligence model of the filter detection system, that a filter has been applied to the image, wherein the artificial intelligence model is configured to analyze the image to detect application of the filter (title recites “Machine learning Hackathon: Detecting filters in Images, also page 1 says Using 40,000 images to train a convolutional neural network on detecting specific filters in new images, page 3 step 2 discloses “predicting what filters went into the images using the trained CNN“ i.e artificial intelligence model is configured to analyze the image to detect the application of the filtering, pages 9-12 shows the model was tested on random never-before- seen images and the results are displayed “Filters detected” for a random cat image on Instagram meeting the above claim limitations). NPL1 discloses displaying in figures on pages 12-15 “filters detected” with the list of filters and the percentages which would obviously meet the limitations of displaying the notification indicating the filters. NPL1 however is silent and fails to disclose transmitting, using the filter detection system and a processor coupled to the display device, a notification indicating that the filter has been applied to the image.
YANAGIHARA disclose transmitting, using the filter detection system and a processor coupled to the display device, a notification indicating that the filter has been applied to the image (figs 1-2, 4 and 8 and paras 0073- 0075 shows and discloses GUI 400 implemented on a display 402, the GUI 400 displaying different notification regions 410, 420, 430 and also displaying the notification 440 whether one of a plurality of digital filters are applied to the image in the post processing meeting the limitations of transmitting, using the filter detection system and a processor coupled to the display device, a notification indicating that the filter has been applied to the image, examiner notes that the specifics of a notification are not required by the current claim). Before the effective filing date of the invention was made, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA are combinable because they are from the same filed of endeavor and are analogous art of image processing. The suggestion/motivation would be an improved system/method in para 0007. Therefore, it would be obvious and within one of ordinary skill in the art to have recognized the advantages of YANAGIHARA in the method of NPL1 to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
2. Regarding claim 3, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 1. NPL1 shows further wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained on at least filters and effects of filters and wherein the detecting comprises the artificial intelligence model identifying characteristics of the image that match at least one filter effect (pages 11-15 shows the filters detected with the effects of the filters applied “i.e brightness 4%, contrast 6% etc..” on the input and the results outputted meeting the claim limitations).
3. Regarding claim 4, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 1. NPL1 disclose further wherein the artificial intelligence model is trained on at least images of a subject of the image (pages 11-15 shows the input images with the subject/object of the image) and wherein the detecting comprises the artificial intelligence model identifying a change in appearance between the subject within the image and the subject in unfiltered images (pages 11-15 shows the output image with the subject/object with the filters detected/applied meeting the claim limitations).
4. Regarding claim 5, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 4. NPL1 disclose further, wherein the detecting comprises determining the change in appearance is indicative of a filter (pages 11-15 shows the output images with the change in appearance indicative of the filters applied in the filters detected section meeting the claim limitations).
5. Regarding claim 6, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 1. YANAGIHARA disclose further wherein the transmitting of the notification comprises retrieving and transmitting an unfiltered image (fig 4, para 0074 shows and discloses the notification region 412 that displays the thumbnail image of the previously captured image in the photo library (i.e retrieving and transmitting the unfiltered image from the photo library for processing) meeting the limitations of comprising retrieving and transmitting an unfiltered image) and NPL1 shows the image of the subject (pages 11-15). NPL1 and YANAGIHARA together would therefore meet the limitations of claim 6.
6. Regarding claim 7, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 1. NPL1 shows and discloses in figs pages 11-15 the identification and the displaying/notification (i.e filters applied) meeting the limitations of wherein the detecting comprises identifying a type of the filter and wherein the
7. Regarding claim 8, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 1. NPL1 discloses and shows in figs on pages 11-15 in the filters detected section more than one filters applied meeting the claim limitations of wherein the detecting comprises detecting more than one filter has been applied.
8. Regarding claim 10, NPL1 and YANAGIHARA disclose the method of claim 1. NPL1 discloses further wherein the image is selected from the group consisting of: a still image (figs in pages 11-15 shows the filters applied to the image meeting the claim limitations)
9. Claim 11 is a corresponding system claim of claim 1. See the explanation of claim 1. Examiner notes that a computer system comprising a display device; a processor coupled to the display device; a memory device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to perform the steps as recited in claim 11 is implied in view of “computing power” disclosed on page 3 of NPL1 and also the displayed input and output images of the image filter remover (pages 9-15 in NPL1) meeting the claim limitations.
10. Claim 13 is a corresponding system claim of claim 3. See the corresponding explanation of claim 3.
11. Claim 14 is a corresponding system claim of claim 4. See the corresponding explanation of claim 4.
12. Claim 15 is a corresponding system claim of claim 5. See the corresponding explanation of claim 5.
13. Claim 16 is a corresponding system claim of claim 6. See the corresponding explanation of claim 6.
14. Claim 17 is a corresponding system claim of claim 7. See the corresponding explanation of claim 7.
15. Claim 18 is a corresponding system claim of claim 8. See the corresponding explanation of claim 8.
16. Claim 20 is a corresponding product claim of claim 1. See the corresponding explanation of claim 1. Examiner notes that a computer readable storage device that stores the executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the product to perform the steps of claim 20 is implied in view of “computing power” disclosed on page 3 of NPL1 and also the displayed input and output images of the image filter remover (pages 9-15 in NPL1) meeting the claim limitations
Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited figures, and paragraphs in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested for the applicant, in preparing the responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Examiner has also cited references in PTO892 but not relied on, which are relevant and pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure, and may also be reading (anticipatory/obvious) on the claims and claimed limitations. Applicant is advised to consider the references in preparing the response/amendments in-order to expedite the prosecution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 9, 12 and 19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1227. The examiner can normally be reached IFW Mon-FRI.
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, Andrew Bee can be reached at 571-270-5183. 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.
/JAYESH A PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
/JAYESH PATEL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights