DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed 12/10/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ubillos, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2013/0239057 (“Ubillos”).
With regard to Claim 1, Ubillos teaches a method comprising:
providing an image-effect control interface for adjusting an image effect depicted in an input image ([0036] describes a GUI which has a preview display area and a slider control. [0037] describes that the slider control allows a user to modify properties of the image), wherein the image-effect control interface includes:
an effect-range user-interface element that displays a range of the image effect to be applied to the input image ([0038] describes that each slider control is displayed within a track, where the track specifies a range of values associated with the property of the image); and
a control user-interface element configured to adjust an intensity of the image effect of the input image, wherein the control user-interface element is located at an initial position of the effect-range user-interface element ([0037] describes that the slider controls are displayed at a position along the track which corresponds to the value of the image property associated with the slider control);
detecting a first user interaction that moves the control user-interface element in a first direction away from the initial position and reaching a first updated position of the effect-range user-interface element ([0040] describes that each slider is individually movable along the track to change the property that is associated with the slider);
reducing the image effect from the input image according to the first updated position of the control user-interface element ([0042] describes an exemplary slider control, which increases or decreases a saturation effect. [0044] describes another slider control, and a user moving the slider to the right to reduce the associated effect, an operation described as possible with the saturation slider);
detecting a second user interaction that moves the control user-interface element in a second direction away from the initial position and reaching a second updated position of the effect-range user-interface element, wherein the second direction is opposite from the first direction; and enhancing the image effect from the input image according to the second updated position of the control user-interface element ([0042] describes a user moving the saturation slider to the right, increasing the saturation effect in the image. As each slider is freely movable along the track to adjust effects, sliders can be moved to both the left and right of an initial position, to decrease and increase an effect).
Claim 8 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 1, and is similarly rejected. Claim 14 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 2, Ubillos teaches that the image effect includes a reflection effect, a shadow effect, and/or a flare effect. [0159] describes a knob that controls shadow recovery, and [0178] describes a knob which controls highlight attenuation such as is caused by glare reflecting from a surface.
Claim 9 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 2, and is similarly rejected. Claim 15 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 2, and is likewise rejected.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubillos, in view of Pilu, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 7,136,537 (“Pilu”).
With regard to Claim 3, Ubillos teaches determining an adjustment parameter associated with the first updated position, wherein the adjustment parameter identifies an amount of image-effect reduction to be applied to the input image. [0183] describes that a user can move a highlight slider left of an original position, to perform highlight attenuation on the image, where reduction is linear with the movement of the slider.
Ubillos, in view of Pilu teaches generating an effect-excluded image by removing the image effect from the input image; and applying a blending algorithm to the input image, the effect-excluded image, and the adjustment parameter to generate an effect-reduced image. Ubillos teaches highlight attenuation to an adjusted parameter according to a slider position, as described above. Pilu teaches at Col. 5, lines 8-64 that images captured which include patches of specular reflection can be stored, along with a same image taken with no specular reflection. These images can then be blended, where the blending can be selectively weighted such that glare can be reduced in intensity to a level selected by a user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Ubillos, to carry out reflection reduction as described in Pilu. The methods described in Pilu enable selective control of the appearance and intensity of individual patches of specular reflection. Therefore, one of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience by enabling users increased control over particular areas of reflection present in an image.
Claim 10 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 3, and is similarly rejected. Claim 16 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 3, and is likewise rejected.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubillos, in view of Pilu, and in view of Shaw, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2003/0021488 (“Shaw”).
With regard to Claim 4, Shaw teaches that applying the blending algorithm includes converting pixels of the input image and pixels of the effect-excluded image into a white-balance recovered space. Shaw teaches at [0009] that the invention is used to perform tone correction on digital images, which remaps pixels classified as shadows or highlights. [0043]-[0044] describe that color in an RGB space can be linearized, and the tone adjustment performed thereon and the pixels converted back to gamma corrected RGB values. As the conversion is carried out in order to identify and correct tone for white highlight in an image, the color space comprises a white balance recovered space under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Ubillos and Pilu to implement the tone correction of images as described in Shaw. Shaw teaches at [0008] that the invention fills a need in the prior art, which provides tone correction in images that include high contrast, high dynamic range elements (such as highlights/glare), which are simple and with low computational requirements. One of skill in the art would have therefore sought the modification, to system functioning by providing for improved tone correction.
Claim 17 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 4, and is likewise rejected.
Claims 5, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubillos, in view of Sytnik, U.S. PGPUB No. 2021/0150681 (“Sytnik”).
With regard to Claim 5, Ubillos teaches that enhancing the image effect from the input image includes: determining an adjustment parameter associated with the second updated position, wherein the adjustment parameter identifies an amount of image-effect enhancement to be applied to the input image. [0042] describes a user moving the saturation slider to the right, increasing the saturation effect in the image. As each slider is freely movable along the track to adjust effects, sliders can be moved to both the left and right of an initial position, to decrease and increase an effect.
Ubillos does not teach generating an effect-isolated image that retains the image effect and excludes one or more remaining portions of the input image; and applying a blending algorithm to the input image, the effect-isolated image, and the adjustment parameter to generate an effect-enhanced image. Sytnik teaches at [0065] that the system receives an image, and generates a mask corresponding to a feature that a user can edit. [0087] describes that the system receives the original image and the generated mask, which enhances the effect of the feature. [0093] describes that the intensity of the enhancement can be adjusted using a slider control.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Ubillos, to apply enhancements as described in Sytnik. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve user experience with an image editing program by allowing a user greater control over enhancing particular aspects of particular elements of an input image.
Claim 11 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 5, and is similarly rejected. Claim 18 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 1, and is likewise rejected.
Claims 6, 7, 12, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ubillos, in view of Kumar, et al., U.S. PGPUB No. 2022/0270310 (“Kumar”).
With regard to Claim 6, Ubillos teaches that reducing the image effect from the input image includes: determining an adjustment parameter associated with the first updated position, wherein the adjustment parameter identifies an amount of image-effect reduction to be applied to the input image. [0037] describes that the slider control allows a user to modify properties of the image, and [0038] describes that each slider control is displayed within a track, where the track specifies a range of values associated with the property of the image.
Ubillos does not teach applying a machine-learning model to the adjustment parameter and the input image to generate an effect-reduced image. Kumar teaches at [0158] that a user act to modify an image involves providing an input on a slider, indicating an amount to change a feature of the image. [0155] describes that a neural network is used to generate a change to the input image corresponding to the change input by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Ubillos, to apply changes to image using machine learning as described in Kumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve system performance by leveraging the power of neural network editing tools within a simple, slider-based editing interface.
Claim 12 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 6, and is similarly rejected. Claim 19 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 6, and is likewise rejected.
With regard to Claim 7, Ubillos teaches that enhancing the image effect from the input image includes: determining an adjustment parameter associated with the second updated position, wherein the adjustment parameter identifies an amount of image-effect enhancement to be applied to the input image. [0037] describes that the slider control allows a user to modify properties of the image, and [0038] describes that each slider control is displayed within a track, where the track specifies a range of values associated with the property of the image.
Ubillos does not teach applying a machine-learning model to the adjustment parameter and the input image to generate an effect-enhanced image. Kumar teaches at [0158] that a user act to modify an image involves providing an input on a slider, indicating an amount to change a feature of the image. [0155] describes that a neural network is used to generate a change to the input image corresponding to the change input by the user.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time this application was filed to modify Ubillos, to apply changes to image using machine learning as described in Kumar. One of skill in the art would have sought the modification, to improve system performance by leveraging the power of neural network editing tools within a simple, slider-based editing interface.
Claim 13 recites a system comprising one or more processors and a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 7, and is similarly rejected. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory medium storing instructions that are executed by the processor (Ubillos, Fig. 22) to perform the method of Claim 7, and is likewise rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH D BLOOMQUIST whose telephone number is (571)270-7718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30-5 PM.
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, Kieu Vu can be reached at 571-272-4057. 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.
/KEITH D BLOOMQUIST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2171
9/3/2026
