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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8, 11, 13, 16 and 18, are currently subject to non-statutory double patent rejections, but are otherwise not subject to any prior art rejections under either 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 35 U.S.C. § 103. Assuming that the foregoing shortcomings of these claims were rectified by the timely filing of a terminal disclaimer, these claims would be allowables
Claims 5-7, 12 and 17, 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
With regards to claims 4 and 16, several of the features of these claims were known in the art as evidenced by Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080) which discloses determining a weight (e.g., “λis”) for each pixel of a transformed image (any image after registering at ¶ [0029]; e.g., “Fs(x,y)”) in dependence on: (i) a measure of alignment (e.g., “alignment measures Mis”) of the transformed image (each image is transformed in step 8; e.g., first image i=1) with a reference image (e.g., second image i=2 when calculating weights for first image i=1 transform) from the set of images, and (ii) the difference in pixel value between the pixel of the transformed image and a corresponding pixel of the reference image at ¶¶ [0047]-[0060]; to wit: “If the feature measure Pi of one image 2 is relatively high but the feature measures Pi of the other images 2 are relatively low, the image 2 having a high feature measure Pi should predominate.” See, also, eqns. 9-11 and ¶ [0029]. But, Grau does not disclose the measure of alignment for the transformed image is a misalignment parameter τi determined as the sum, over all of the pixel positions (x,y) of the transformed image, of the absolute differences between the transformed image Wi(x, y) and the reference image Ir(x, y)
With regards to claims 5 and 17, several of the features of these claims were known in the art as evidenced by Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080) which discloses the transformed image is selected from a plurality of transformed images at ¶ [0029] (i.e., each image is selected for application of eqn. 10 before combining the images using eqn. 11). But, Grau does not disclose selecting one of the images of the set of images to be the reference image by: determining sharpness indications for the images of the set of images and based on the determined sharpness indications, selecting the sharpest image from the set of images to be the reference image.
With regards to claims 6-7, these claims depend from claim 5 and therefore incorporate the features of that claim that were found allowable.
With regards to claims 8 and 18, several of the features of these claims were known in the art as evidenced by Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080) which discloses determining a weight (e.g., “λis”) for each pixel of a transformed image (any image after registering at ¶ [0029]; e.g., “Fs(x,y)”) in dependence on: (i) a measure of alignment (e.g., “alignment measures Mis”) of the transformed image (each image is transformed in step 8; e.g., first image i=1) with a reference image (e.g., second image i=2 when calculating weights for first image i=1 transform) from the set of images, and (ii) the difference in pixel value between the pixel of the transformed image and a corresponding pixel of the reference image at ¶¶ [0047]-[0060]; to wit: “If the feature measure Pi of one image 2 is relatively high but the feature measures Pi of the other images 2 are relatively low, the image 2 having a high feature measure Pi should predominate.” See, also, eqns. 9-11 and ¶ [0029]. But, Grau does not disclose, for each transformed image of the plurality of transformed images, determining whether a respective measure of alignment of the transformed image with the reference image indicates that the alignment of the transformed image with the reference image is below a threshold alignment level, and in dependence thereon selecting the transformed image for which weights are determined
With regards to claim 11, several of the features of this claim was known in the art as evidenced by Rohling et al, “Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080) which discloses a transformation determined by determining a set of points (e.g., “corresponding landmarks”) of the image which correspond to a predetermined set of points of the reference image at pp. 181-182, secs. 3.2.2-3.2.3; see, also, pp. 180-181, sec. 3.2.1. But, Rohling does not disclose the set of points of the image are determined using the Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm, and wherein the Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm is initialized using the results of a multiple kernel tracking technique
With regards to claim 12, this claim depends from claim 11 and therefore incorporates the features of that claim that were found allowable.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 1
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
A method of forming a reduced noise image using a set of images, the method comprising:
(Incorporated from parent claim 1)
A method of forming a reduced noise image using a set of images, the method comprising:
determining a weight for each pixel of a transformed image in dependence on:
(Claim 8)
The method of claim 2 further comprising determining weights for one or more of the transformed images using…
(i) a measure of alignment of the transformed image with a reference image from the set of images, and
(Claim 8)
… using the determined measures of alignment for each of the transformed images…
(Incorporated from parent claim 2)
The method of claim 1, further including determining, for each of the transformed images, a respective measure of alignment of that transformed image with the reference image…
(ii) the difference in pixel value between the pixel of the transformed image and a corresponding pixel of the reference image; and
(Incorporated from parent claim 2)
…wherein the measure of alignment for a transformed image is a misalignment parameter τi determined as the sum, over all of the pixel positions(x,y) of the transformed image, of the absolute differences between the transformedimage Wi(x, y) and the reference image Ir(x, y).
forming the reduced noise image by combining a plurality of images including said transformed image using the determined weights.
(Incorporated from parent claim 1)
combining a plurality of images including said one or more of the transformed images to form a reduced noise image.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 2
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining the transformed image by applying a transformation to an image of the set of images to bring it closer to alignment with the reference image.
(Incorporated from parent claim 1)
obtaining a plurality of transformed images by applying respective transformations to at least some of the images of the set to bring them closer to alignment with a reference image from the set of images…
Claim 3 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 3
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the transformed image is selected from a plurality of transformed images.
in dependence thereon selectively including the transformed image as one of said one or more of the transformed images for which weights are determined.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 4
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein the measure of alignment for the transformed image is a misalignment parameter τi determined as the sum, over all of the pixel positions (x,y) of the transformed image, of the absolute differences
between the transformed image Wi(x, y) and the reference image Ir(x, y).
(Incorporated from parent claim 2)
…wherein the measure of alignment for a transformed image is a misalignment parameter τi determined as the sum, over all of the pixel positions(x,y) of the transformed image, of the absolute differences between the transformedimage Wi(x, y) and the reference image Ir(x, y).
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 8
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 3, further comprising, for each transformed image of the plurality of transformed images, determining whether a respective measure of alignment of the transformed image with the reference image indicates that the alignment of the transformed image with the reference image is below a threshold alignment level, and in dependence thereon selecting the transformed image for
which weights are determined.
(Incorporated from parent claim 2)
The method of claim 1, further including determining, for each of the transformed images, a respective measure of alignment of that transformed image with the reference image…
(Claim 8)
determining whether the respective measure of alignment indicates that the alignment of the transformed image with the reference image is below a threshold alignment level, and in dependence thereon selectively including the transformed image as one of said one or more of the transformed images for which weights are determined.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 9
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 1, wherein either: said plurality of images which are combined to form the reduced noise image further includes the reference image; or said plurality of images which are combined to form the reduced noise
image does not include the reference image.
(Incorporated from parent claim 1)
combining a plurality of images including said one or more of the transformed images to form a reduced noise image.
The recited features are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive. Claim 1, as incorporated into claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162, inherently reads upon the recited limitations by mere tautology. Logically, claim 1 either incorporates the reference image into the reduced noise image or it does not. Regardless of which, the claim is anticipated.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 10
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 2, further comprising determining the transformation to apply to said image, wherein the transformation is determined by:
(Incorporated from parent claim 1)
obtaining a plurality of transformed images by applying respective transformations to at least some of the images of the set to bring them closer to alignment with a reference image from the set of images, wherein the transformations are determined…
determining a set of points of the image which correspond to a predetermined set of points of the reference image; and
… the transformations are determined using multiple kernel tracking to initialize a Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm that is used on said at least some of the images to bring them closer to alignment with said reference image
determining parameters of the transformation for the image based on an error metric which is indicative of an error between a transformation of at least some of the determined set of points of the image and the corresponding points of the predetermined set of points of the reference image.
(Incorporated from parent claim 2)
The method of claim 1, further including determining, for each of the transformedimages, a respective measure of alignment of that transformed image with thereference image, wherein the measure of alignment for a transformed image is amisalignment parameter τi determined as the sum, over all of the pixel positions(x,y) of the transformed image, of the absolute differences between the transformedimage Wi(x, y) and the reference image Ir(x, y).
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 11
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 8
The method of claim 10, wherein the set of points of the image are determined using the Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm, and wherein the Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm is initialized using the results of a multiple kernel tracking technique.
(Incorporated from parent claim 1)
… the transformations are determined using multiple kernel tracking to initialize a Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm that is used on said at least some of the images to bring them closer to alignment with said reference image
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because, although claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 does not specify how it acquires a “set of images”, acquiring a set of images by video sequence was known in the art:
OFFICIAL NOTICE is hereby taken that, at the effective filing date of the present application, acquiring a set of images by capturing a plurality of frames of a video sequence was known in the art. At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to acquire a set of images by video, as was known in the art, when combining images to form a reduced noise image according to the method recited by claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. The motivation for doing so comes from the prior art wherein, as a matter of common sense, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that video would provide multiple images from relatively the same perspective that could be aligned according to the recited method. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine the knowledge of the art with claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 to obtain the invention specified in this claim.
With regards to claim 14, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 15, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 2, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 16, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 4, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 18, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 8, which recites a method performing these same steps.
Claim 19 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown in the following table:
Present Application
Claim 19
U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162
Claim 19
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable dataset description of an integrated circuit that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, causes the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture the hardware processing module as
set forth in claim 14.
A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable description of an integrated circuit that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, causes the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture a processing module comprising: alignment logic configured to: apply respective transformations to at least some of a set of images to bring them closer to alignment with a reference image from the set of images, wherein the transformations are determined using multiple kernel tracking to initialize a Lucas Kanade Inverse algorithm that is used on said at least some of the images to bring them closer to alignment with said reference image; and combining logic configured to: combine a plurality of images including said one or more of the transformed images to form a reduced noise image.
With regards to claim 20, the steps stored in the computer readable medium of this claim are unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,162 for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
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 1-3, 9, 14-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080).
With regards to claim 1, Grau discloses determining a weight (e.g., “λis”) for each pixel of a transformed image (any image after registering at ¶ [0029]; e.g., “Fs(x,y)”) in dependence on: (i) a measure of alignment (e.g., “alignment measures Mis”) of the transformed image (each image is transformed in step 8; e.g., first image i=1) with a reference image (e.g., second image i=2 when calculating weights for first image i=1 transform) from the set of images, and (ii) the difference in pixel value between the pixel of the transformed image and a corresponding pixel of the reference image at ¶¶ [0047]-[0060]; to wit: “If the feature measure Pi of one image 2 is relatively high but the feature measures Pi of the other images 2 are relatively low, the image 2 having a high feature measure Pi should predominate.” See, also, eqns. 9-11 and ¶ [0029].
Grau discloses forming the reduced noise image by combining a plurality of images including said transformed image (e.g., “Fs(x,y)”) using the determined weights (e.g., “λis”) at ¶ [0060].
With regards to claim 2, Grau discloses obtaining the transformed image by applying a transformation to an image of the set of images to bring it closer to alignment with the reference image at ¶ [0029].
With regards to claim 3, Grau discloses the transformed image is selected from a plurality of transformed images at ¶ [0029] (i.e., each image is selected for application of eqn. 10 before combining the images using eqn. 11).
With regards to claim 9, Grau discloses said plurality of images which are combined to form the reduced noise image further includes the reference image at ¶ [0060].
With regards to claim 14, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are anticipated by Grau for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 15, the steps performed by the apparatus of this claim are anticipated by Grau for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 2, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 19, the steps stored in the computer readable medium of this claim are anticipated by Grau for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 14, which recites a method performing these same steps.
With regards to claim 20, the steps stored in the computer readable medium of this claim are anticipated by Grau for the same reasons as were provided in the discussion of claim 1, which recites a method performing these same steps.
(Continued on next page)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080) in view of Rohling et al, “Grau et al (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0208080).”
With regards to claim 10, Grau discloses obtaining the transformed image by applying a transformation to an image of the set of images to bring it closer to alignment with the reference image at ¶ [0029]. Grau does not specify the transformation is determined by determining parameters of the transformation for the image based on an error metric which is indicative of an error between a transformation of at least some of the determined set of points of the image and the corresponding points of the predetermined set of points of the reference image. However, this limitation was known in the art:
Rohling discloses a transformation determined by determining a set of points (e.g., “corresponding landmarks”) of the image which correspond to a predetermined set of points of the reference image at pp. 181-182, secs. 3.2.2-3.2.3; see, also, pp. 180-181, sec. 3.2.1.
Rohling discloses determining parameters of the transformation for the image based on an error metric (e.g., “registration error”) which is indicative of an error between a transformation of at least some of the determined set of points of the image and the corresponding points of the predetermined set of points of the reference image at pp. 182-183, secs. 3.2.3-3.2.4.
At the time of the filing of the present application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to register images as taught by Rohling, when performing the step of registering images, according to the method for disclosed by Grau. The motivation for doing so comes from Grau which specifically suggests using the registration technique taught by the Rohling reference at ¶ [0029]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Rohling with Grau to obtain the invention specified in this claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID F DUNPHY whose telephone number is (571)270-1230. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 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, Vu Le can be reached on 5712727332. 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.
/DAVID F DUNPHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2673
Prosecution Insights