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 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites the limitation, “… if the result of the comparison shows that the contrast of defined number of images is below the defined threshold, the initiation is blocked, should be amended to positively recite “when the result of the comparison shows that the contrast of defined number of images is below the defined threshold, the initiation is blocked”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation, “.. if the result indicates that the contrast for the regular camera images is below a defined threshold” should be amended to positively recite “when the result indicates that the contrast for the regular camera images is below a defined threshold”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “… the regular camera images and/or the thermal images are captured in parallel by the thermal camera”, claim 6 is unclear how the regular images or the thermal images are captured in parallel by the thermal imaging camera.
Regarding claim 13, which recites “…when executed by a computer, cause it to carry out the steps of the method according to claim 1” claim 13 is unclear because the claim does not define what “it” is referring back to.
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.
35 U.S.C. 101 has been interpreted as imposing three requirements. First, whoever invents or discovers an eligible invention may obtain only one patent therefor. MPEP 2104. This requirement forms the basis for statutory double patenting rejections when two applications claim the same invention (i.e. claim identical subject matter). Id. Second, a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. Id.; MPEP 2106. Third, a claimed invention must be useful or have a utility that is specific, substantial and credible. MPEP 2104.
The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the claimed invention is directed to a computer program per se. See MPEP 2106 (I). A claim directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable medium having the program encoded thereon establishes a sufficient functional relationship between the program and a computer so as to remove it from the realm of “program per se”. MPEP 2111.05(II). Hence, adding the limitations of “stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium” would resolve this issue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a2) as being anticipated by Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0218909 A1).
As per claim 1, Schmidt teaches a method for applying a method to increase a resolution of an image of a thermal imaging camera, comprising: providing image data, wherein the image data comprises a define number of images (fig. 6 el. 600; frame 120 and [0088]),wherein the images are regular camera images and/or thermal images, and wherein the image data is captured by the thermal imaging camera (abstract, [0009-0014], [0036], [0038], [0040], fig. 3, el. 280; “.. in some embodiments, the thermal imaging camera my also capture visible light from the scene and convert the visible light into the visible light image”… and “Thermal imaging camera 100 captures the visible light image and/or the infrared image in response to the depressing trigger control”); analyzing a contrast in image data ([0014], [0016], [0077], [0084]), [0165]); initiating the application of the method for increasing the resolution as a function of a result of the analysis of the contrast in the image data ([0062], [0069], [0192]).
As per claim 2, Schmidt teaches wherein the analyzing step comprises: defining a threshold for contrast in the image data ([0161], [0174], [0186], [0192], [0207] and fig. 12; “… in such examples, as the difference between the gas temperature and the apparent background temperature increases, the contrast caused by the gas increases. Accordingly, in such examples, given a particular type of gas, in order to meet a minimum contrast threshold desired to ensure visibility of the gas, the gas amount and temperature difference must be sufficiently high”), and comparing the respective contrast of individual images of the image data with the defined threshold for contrast (fig. 12).
As per claim 4, Schmidt ( teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Schmidt does not explicitly disclose wherein: if the result of the comparison shows that the contrast of a defined number of images is below the define threshold, the initiation is blocked (fig. 16 el. S54 and S57).
As per claim 11, which is the corresponding computer program with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 12, which is the corresponding device for data processing with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
As per claim 13, which the corresponding computer-readable medium with the limitations of the method as recited in claim 1, thus the rejection and analysis made for claim 1 also applies here.
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.
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(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0218909 A1) in view of Okada et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2020/0106993 A1).
As per claim 3, Schmidt does not explicitly teach when the result of the comparison shows that the contrast of a set number of a set number of images is above the defined threshold, only images of the defined images with a contrast above the defined threshold are provided in the context of the initiation.
However, Okada teaches when the result of the comparison shows that the contrast of a set number of images is above the defined threshold, only images of the defined images with a contrast above the defined threshold are provided in the context of the initiation (fig.16 and [0203]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Okada with Schmidt for the benefit of providing improved image quality.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No.) in view of Okada et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0106993 A1) and further in view of Nestares et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0019887 A1).
As per claim 5, Schmidt (modified by Okada) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Schmidt does not explicitly wherein the method for increasing the resolution of the image of the thermal imaging camera comprises: determining a subpixel shift of the defined number of images compared to a reference image, wherein the reference image is one of the defined number of images, shifting the defined number of images based on the determined subpixel shift to align with the reference image, scaling the defined number of images by a defined scaling factor, ad determining a resulting image based on the scaled defined number of images and the defined subpixel shift.
However Nestares teaches determining a subpixel shift of the defined number of images compared to a reference image, wherein the reference image is one of the defined number of images ([0005], [0048], [0082]; “.. to obtain the different LR images need for the SR method, these scanning imaging devices allow the scanning pattern to be varied, thus producing different sampling grids with sub-pixel shifts needed for the SR method”), shifting the defined number of images based on the determined subpixel shift to align with the reference image ([0005], [0036-0039], [0082], [0048] and fig. 3; “.. Regardless of the motion model used for the alignment, as well as the type of alignment (that is LR to LR, or HR to HR), state of the art gradient based, multi-resolution, robust image motion estimation methods should be used to determine the alignment that will be input into the Likelihood gradient computation block 108”), scaling the defined number of images by a defined scaling factor ([0032-0033]) and determining a resulting image based on the scaled defined number of images and the determined subpixel shift (fig. 3; [0005], [0032-0039], [0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nestares with Schmidt (modified by Okada) for the benefit of providing improve image quality.
As per claim 6, Schmidt (modified by Okada and Nestares) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 5. In addition, Schmidt teaches wherein: the defined number of images are both regular camera images and thermal images (abstract, [0009-0014], [0036], [0038], [0040], fig. 3, el. 280), and the regular camera images and/or the thermal images are captured in parallel by the thermal imaging camera (fig. 3 el. 200; 206).
As per claim 8, Schmidt (modified by Okada and Nestares) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 6. Schmidt does not explicitly disclose wherein: the step of determining the subpixel shift, shifting, scaling, and determining the resulting image are carried out based on the thermal images (fig. 3; [0005], [0032-0039], [0048], [0072], [0082]; “.. SR methods may also be applied to enhance images captured with special types of cameras, such as cameras with a vibrating sensor, low resolution, high frame rate cameras, and infrared cameras”).
As per claim 9, Schmidt (modified by Okada and Nestares) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 5. In addition, Schmidt teaches wherein: the defined number of imagers are thermal images (abstract, [0009-0014], [0036], [0038], [0040], fig. 3, el. 280). Schmidt does not explicitly disclose the steps of determining the subpixel shift, shifting, scaling, and determining the resulting images are carried out based on the thermal images.
However, Nestares teaches the steps of determining the subpixel shift, shifting, scaling, and determining the resulting image are carried out based on the thermal images ((fig. 3; [0005], [0032-0039], [0048], [0072], [0082] and claim 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Nestares with Schmidt (modified by Okada) for the benefit of providing improved image quality
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 and 10 is 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Talbert et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0402210 A1), “.. Super Resolution and Color Motion Artifact Correction In A Pulsed Fluorescence Imaging System”
Agaian et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0244946 A1), “Method and System For Thermal Image/Video Measurements and Processing”
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA PRINCE whose telephone number is (571)270-1821. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-3:30 P.M..
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, Jamie Atala can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
JESSICA PRINCE
Examiner
Art Unit 2486
/JESSICA M PRINCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486