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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are currently pending in the present invention, with claims 1, 7, and 13 being independent.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-16 are 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.
With respect to claim 1, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to how N-1 rows of pixels are stored into the memory, where the N-1 rows of pixels are respectively the last row of N-1 image layers among the N image layers and subsequently reading N-1 rows of pixels from memory when generating the Laplacian Pyramid for a second image tile of a second slice. For instance, if the Gaussian Pyramid had 5 image layers, then 4 rows of pixels would be stored into memory, the 4 rows of pixels being the last row of 4 image layers among the 5 image layers and then the 4 rows of pixels would be read from memory for the Laplacian pyramid. How are the N-1 rows of pixels the last row of N-1 image layers? Are they any of the image layers, so long as it is N-1? The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims 7 and 13 recite similar limitations as to those in claim 1 and those corresponding limitations are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that which was set forth with respect to claim 1
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 13, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what constitutes the visible area centered on the second image tile. How is the first/original image tile located on the visible area? How does the visible area contain a third image tile? The specification sets forth, for instance, “The visible area 110 indicates the data range required for performing image operations...on the image tile”, see paragraph 2. However, taking into account the specification as a whole, it remains unclear as to which area of the tile is the visible area. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
With respect to claims 6, 12, and 16, given the plain and ordinary meaning of the words themselves when afforded the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the corresponding disclosure, the scope of the claimed limitations is unclear. For instance, it is not immediately clear as to what is meant by the image tile being located to the lower right of the first image tile? Is lower right in the pyramid, so that it is located on a different level? Or is it located to the lower right in a tiled image. It appears from the disclosure in paragraph 52 and fig. 1, that lower right is with respect to the image tiles in the original image, and the lower right is with respect to the original image. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant clarify the scope of the claimed limitation. For the purposes of further examination, the examiner is interpreting lower right with respect to fig. 1 and paragraph 52 of the originally filed disclosure.
Claims depending thereon do not cure the noted deficiencies and are also rejected using substantially similar rationale as to that set forth for the claims from which they depend.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PG Publication 2016/0148359 to Gnedin teaches “a Laplacian pyramid in an image processing system comprising a parallel computing platform includes constructing a first layer of a Gaussian pyramid based on an original image. A plurality of Laplacian pyramid layers are constructed using a plurality of device kernels executing on a graphical processing device included in the parallel computing platform. Each respective Laplacian pyramid layer is constructed by a process which includes using one or more first device kernels to calculate a Gaussian pyramid layer based on a immediately preceding Gaussian pyramid layer and using one or more second device kernels to calculate the respective Laplacian pyramid layer based on the immediately preceding Gaussian pyramid layer in parallel with calculation of the Gaussian pyramid layer”, see abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J COBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3875. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11am - 7pm ET.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at 571-272-2330. 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.
/MICHAEL J COBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights