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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
Applicants’ amendment filed 06/23/2026 overcomes the following objection(s)/rejection(s):
The claim objection for claim 4 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
The claim objection for claim 10 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
The 112 rejection for claims 6 and 13 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
The 101 for claim 11 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-12, filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Agaian (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0244946 A1) in view of Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0218909 A1).
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) 1-2, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agaian et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0244946 A1) in view of Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0218909 A1).
As per claim 1, Agaian teaches a method increasing a resolution of an image of a thermal imaging camera, the method comprising: providing image data including a number of images (figs. 1-5 and abstract, [00024], [0029-0032], the images being regular camera images and/or thermal images (abstract, [0029-0032], [0059], [0083]); analyzing a contrast of the images in the image data (abstract, “.. the present invention offers a method, systems, and device to measure the quality of images and videos by combining several image quality components, including but not limited to brightness, darkness, density, and intensity, and more particularly to measuring the quality of thermal images or to evaluate image and video's brightness-darkness value” and [0006], [0008], [0029], [0087-0091], [0097], [0117-0119]); and initiating a process for increasing the resolution as a function of a result of the analyzing the contrast in the image data ([0008], [0026-0028], [0059], [0097-0105]). Agaian does not explicitly disclose providing image data including a defined number of images, as recited in claim 1.
However, Shmidt teaches providing image data including a defined number of images (fig. 6).
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 Agaian for the benefit of providing the known concept of thermal image capturing. In addition, one would be prompted to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt with Agaian (modified by Nestares) for the benefit of providing an improved thermal imaging systems.
As per claim 2, Agaian (modified by Schmidt) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. In addition, teaches wherein the analyzing the contrast comprising: defining a threshold for contrast in the image data ([0082-0084]), and comparing the respective contrast of individual images of the image data with the defined threshold for contrast ([0031], [0082-0086]).
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 is 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(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agaian et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2015/0244946 A1 ) in view of Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0218909 A1) and further in view of Okada et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0106993 A1).
As per claim 3, Agaian (modified by Schmidt) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Agaian does not explicitly disclose in response to a result of the comparing showing that the contrast of a set of number of images is above the defined threshold, only images of the defined number of images with a contrast above the defined threshold are used in the processing for increasing the resolution (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 Agaian (modified by Schmidt) for the benefit of super-resolution imaging may be identified more efficiently.
As per claim 4, Agaian (modified by Schmidt and Okada) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 2. Agaian does not explicitly disclose wherein: in response to a result of the comparing showing that the contrast of a defined number is below the defined threshold, the initiating the process for increasing the resolution is blocked.
However, Okada teaches in response to a result of the comparing showing that the contrast of a defined number is below the defined threshold, the initiating the process for increasing the resolution is blocked (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 Agaian (modified by Schmidt) for the benefit of super-resolution imaging may be identified more efficiently.
Claim(s) 5-6, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agaian et al., (U.S. Pub. No.2015/0244946 A1) in view of Schmidt et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0218909 A1) in view of Nestares et al., (U.S. Pub. No. 20070019887 A1).
As per claim 5, Agaian (modified by Schmidt) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 1. Agaian 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 Agaian for the benefit of providing improve image quality.
As per claim 6, Agaian (modified by Schmidt and Nestares) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 5. Although Agaian discloses wherein the defined number of image are both regular camera images and thermal images (abstract, “the present invention offers a method for determining the percentage of enhancement in thermal, infrared, color, and gray scale images” and [0008], [0030-0031]), Agaian does not explicitly disclose the regular camera images and/or the thermal images are captured concurrently with one another by the thermal imaging camera.
However, Schmidt teaches the regular camera images and/or the thermal images are captured concurrently with one another by the thermal imaging camera ([0039-0040] and fig. 3).
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 Schmidt with Agaian (modified by Nestares) for the benefit of providing the known teachings of thermal imaging. In addition, one would be prompted to incorporate the teachings of Schmidt with Agaian (modified by Nestares) for the benefit of providing an improved thermal imaging systems.
As per claim 8, Agaian (modified by Schmidt and Nestares) as a whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 6. Agaian does not explicitly disclose wherein: the determining the subpixel shift, the shifting, the, scaling, and the determining the resulting image are carried out based on the thermal images.
However, Nestares teaches the determining the subpixel shift, the shifting, the, scaling, and the 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”).
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 Agaian (modified by Schmidt) for the benefit of providing improve image quality.
As per claim 9, Agaian (modified by Schmidt and Nestares) as whole teaches everything as claimed above, see claim 5. Although (modified by Schmidt) discloses the defined number of images are thermal images (fig.6), Agaian does not explicitly disclose the step of determining the subpixel shift, the shifting, the scaling, and the determining the resulting image are carried out based on the thermal images.
However, Nestares teaches the step of determining the subpixel shift, the shifting, the scaling, and the 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 Agaian (modified by Schmidt) 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.
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
Prosecution Insights