DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
§ 112(f) interpretation despite the absence of “means”
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a division unit”, “a selection unit”, “an image generation unit”, and “a combining unit” in claims 1-13, and “an evaluation unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 10, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka (US 20210407048 A1) in view of Fujita (US 20020050991 A1).
As per claim 1, Tanaka teaches the claimed:
1. An information processing apparatus comprising:
a division unit configured to divide an input image into a plurality of divided images;
(Tanaka [0028]: “the image data acquisition apparatus 1 is divided into small areas of a predetermined size by a data classifier”)
Tanaka alone does not explicitly teach the remaining claim limitations.
However, Tanaka in combination with Fujita teaches the claimed:
a selection unit configured to select an appropriate image generator for each of the divided images from among a plurality of image generators based on the divided images of the input image;
(Fujita [0025]: “a plurality of image generators each for generating image data to be processed … a controller for selecting image generators”
Fujita [0015]: “It may be arranged that the data storing unit has divided data storing regions each corresponding to one of the plurality of image generators”
Tanaka [0028]: “The images 40-1 to 40-N are sets of small areas images of the noise levels 1 to N, respectively. The images 40-1 to 40-N are input data to the learning models (image generators 3-1 to 3-N), respectively.”)
an image generation unit configured to generate a plurality of generated images from or the divided images of the input image using the plurality of image generators selected by the selection unit; and
(Tanaka [0032]: “The image generators 3-1 to 3-N can generate the images 4-1 to 4-N having different regions with the highest quality by inputting the same captured image.”)
a combining unit configured to combine two or more of the generated images.
(Tanaka [0034]: “The image selection and combination unit 5 selects different image regions 5-1 to 5-M (here, M=3) from the images 4-1 to 4-N according to a region selection pattern set by the pattern setting unit 6, and combines the images of the selected image regions 5-1 to 5-M to generate one high-quality image 7.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the selecting of image generators as taught by Fujita with the system of Tanaka in order to improve image generation quality by allowing each portion of the image to be processed with a generator that is well suited for that image portion.
As per claim 14, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 1, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 2, Tanaka teaches the claimed:
2. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the image generation unit generates the generated images from the divided images using the image generators selected for the divided images by the selection unit, and
(Tanaka [0028]: “the captured image obtained by high-speed capturing such as the parallel imaging by the image data acquisition apparatus 1 is divided into small areas of a predetermined size by a data classifier … The images 40-1 to 40-N are sets of small areas images of the noise levels 1 to N, respectively. The images 40-1 to 40-N are input data to the learning models (image generators 3-1 to 3-N), respectively.”
Tanaka [0032]: “The image generators 3-1 to 3-N can generate the images 4-1 to 4-N having different regions with the highest quality by inputting the same captured image.”)
wherein the combining unit combines the plurality of generated images generated for the divided images by arranging the generated images at positions corresponding to the divided images of the input image.
(Tanaka [0034]: “The image selection and combination unit 5 selects different image regions 5-1 to 5-M (here, M=3) from the images 4-1 to 4-N according to a region selection pattern set by the pattern setting unit 6, and combines the images of the selected image regions 5-1 to 5-M to generate one high-quality image 7.”
Tanaka teaches the pattern setting unit that arranges the generated images, that are based on the divided images, according to a pattern or position set by it to combine it into an image. Further, looking at FIG. 2, it shows the arrangement of the generated images based on a pattern and position to generate the combined image.)
As per claim 3, Tanaka teaches the claimed:
3. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1,
wherein the image generation unit generates the plurality of generated images from the input image using the plurality of image generators selected for the divided images and
(Tanaka [0028]: “the captured image obtained by high-speed capturing such as the parallel imaging by the image data acquisition apparatus 1 is divided into small areas of a predetermined size by a data classifier … The images 40-1 to 40-N are sets of small areas images of the noise levels 1 to N, respectively. The images 40-1 to 40-N are input data to the learning models (image generators 3-1 to 3-N), respectively.”
Tanaka [0032]: “The image generators 3-1 to 3-N can generate the images 4-1 to 4-N having different regions with the highest quality by inputting the same captured image.”)
wherein the combining unit extracts area images generated by the appropriate image generator selected for each of the divided images from among the plurality of generated images generated from the input image, and combines the area images by arranging the area images at positions corresponding to the divided images of the input image.
(Tanaka [0034]: “The image regions 5-1 to 5-M selected by the image selection and combination unit 5 are regions in which the generated images 4-1 to 4-N of the image generators 3-1 to 3-3 have the highest quality. Therefore, the image selection and combination unit 5 can generate the high-quality image 7 for the whole image by selecting and combining the regions having the highest quality from the generated images 4-1 to 4-N, respectively. The image selection and combination unit 5 displays the generated high-quality image 7 on a display apparatus 70.”)
As per claim 10, Tanaka teaches the claimed:
10. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the combining unit combines the generated images corresponding to adjacent divided images, such that the generated images overlap each other with a predetermined width.
(Tanaka [0040]: “The image selection and combination unit 5 generates a binary map of each region selection pattern and multiplies the image received from the image storage unit 4 to generate the image regions 5-1 to 5-3. … the region selection pattern is set in advance so that the boundaries overlap with one another by a predetermined width.”)
As per claim 13, Tanaka teaches the claimed:
13. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of image generators generates the generated images using at
(Tanaka [0028]: “Each of the image generators 3-1 to 3-N can be implemented by a trained learning model (for example, a neural network). … The images 40-1 to 40-N are sets of small areas images of the noise levels 1 to N, respectively. The images 40-1 to 40-N are input data to the learning models (image generators 3-1 to 3-N), respectively.”
Tanaka [0031]: “The learning model is trained using the input data and the teacher data, and weighting of nodes in the neural network is set in advance. Accordingly, the image generators 3-1 to 3-N can be made.”)
As per claim 15, Tanaka teaches the claimed:
15. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer-executable program for causing a computer to perform the method according to claim 14.
(Tanaka [0046]: “a computer or the like including a processor such as a central processing unit (CPU) or a graphics processing unit (GPU), and a memory. The CPU reads and executes a program stored in the memory, thereby implementing functions of the image generators 3-1 to 3-N, the image selection and combination unit 5, and the pattern setting unit 6 by software.”)
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Fujita and in further view of Liu (CN 108984734 A).
As per claim 4, Tanaka and Fujita alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tanaka and Fujita in combination with Liu teaches the claimed:
4. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selection unit selects the appropriate image generator for each of the divided images of the input image based on a result of a user's subjective evaluation performed on a plurality of generated images preliminarily generated by the plurality of image generators from a plurality of images.
(Fujita [0025]: “a plurality of image generators each for generating image data to be processed … a controller for selecting image generators”
Liu (page 6, line 10-12): “The specific technical solution of the system is: a system for subjective evaluation of image quality with a large sample volume, including: a preliminary test integration module for evaluating images based on testers’ evaluation results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the subjective evaluation as taught by Liu with the system of Tanaka as modified by Fujita in order to choose generators that produce visually preferred results for specific parts of the image.
As per claim 5, Tanaka and Fujita alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tanaka and Fujita in combination with Liu teaches the claimed:
5. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the selection unit selects the appropriate image generator for each of the divided images of the input image based on a result of an evaluation correlated with a user's subjective evaluation on a plurality of generated images preliminarily generated by the plurality of image generators from a plurality of images.
(Fujita [0025]: “a plurality of image generators each for generating image data to be processed … a controller for selecting image generators”
Liu (page 6, line 10-12): “The specific technical solution of the system is: a system for subjective evaluation of image quality with a large sample volume, including: a preliminary test integration module for evaluating images based on testers’ evaluation results”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the subjective evaluation as taught by Liu with the system of Tanaka as modified by Fujita in order to choose generators that produce visually preferred results for specific parts of the image.
As per claim 6, Tanaka and Fujita alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tanaka and Fujita in combination with Liu teaches the claimed:
6. The information processing apparatus according to claim 5, further comprising an evaluation unit configured to calculate a result of an evaluation correlated with the user's subjective evaluation based on an image obtained after a plurality of image processes to which a weight correlated with the user's subjective evaluation is applied is performed on the plurality of images and the plurality of generated images generated by the plurality of image generators from the plurality of images.
(Fujita [0025]: “a plurality of image generators each for generating image data to be processed …”
Liu (page 24, line 24-25, 29-30, page 25, line 1-4): “a method for subjective evaluation of image quality with a large sample volume … assign scores to the images according to the comparison result of each group of images by the tester … Specifically, if the comparison result is that the image quality is better, the better image is scored R, and the image with poorer image quality is scored 0; if the comparison result is that the image quality is similar, then the two compared images are each Record R/2 points, where R is a natural number greater than 0.”
Fujita teaches the plurality of image generators generating multiples images to be processed, which can be input into the subjective evaluation system of Liu, who teaches the assignment of scores based on the results of the evaluation, which are considered weights since it is used to compare and order based on these values.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the subjective evaluation as taught by Liu with the system of Tanaka as modified by Fujita in order to choose generators that produce visually preferred results for specific parts of the image.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Fujita and in further view of Miyashita (US 20240430575 A1).
As per claim 11, Tanaka and Fujita alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tanaka and Fujita in combination with Miyashita teaches the claimed:
11. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the combining unit combines the generated images by adjusting an average luminance value such that the generated images corresponding to the adjacent divided images have the same average luminance value.
(Miyashita [0047]: “The luminance adjustment unit 20 refers to the coordinate table 11, obtains a luminance magnification indicating a ratio of the luminance values of the pixels of each of the two corresponding divided images, and generates a luminance adjustment coefficient for leveling the luminance difference indicated by the luminance magnification.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the luminance adjustment unit as taught by Miyashita with the system of Tanaka as modified by Fujita in order to level and adjust the luminance difference between two divided images and find a value that will match both when combined.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Fujita and in further view of Zagaynov (US 20220198187 A1).
As per claim 12, Tanaka and Fujita alone do not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Tanaka and Fujita in combination with Zagaynov teaches the claimed:
12. The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the division unit linearly divides the input image or linearly divides the input image for each object in the input image.
(Zagaynov [Abstract]: “identifying a corresponding minimum bounding polygon; creating one or more image dividing lines based on the minimum bounding polygons; and defining boundaries of one or more objects of interest based on at least a subset of the image dividing lines.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the image dividing lines as taught by Zagaynov with the system of Tanaka as modified by Fujita in order to be able to define boundaries for an image and objects within the image and to precisely know where to divide the image.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA SUO whose telephone number is (571) 272-8387. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached on (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JOSHUA SUO/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights