DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
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: “means for …” in claims 14-20
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 para.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-11, 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LE (US 20230099034) in view of KIM (US 20210256658 ).
Regarding claim 1, LE teaches an apparatus comprising:
interface circuitry to obtain a first image ( 334 in Fig. 3);
computer readable instructions( 302 in Fig. 3) ; and
at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the computer readable instructions to:
provide the first image to image signal processor (ISP) circuitry, the ISP circuitry to implement an image processing pipeline to process the first image( 404 in Fig. 4; 502 in Fig. 5));
identify a region of interest (ROI)( 402 in Fig. 5); and
provide coordinates of the ROI to the ISP circuitry, the ISP circuitry to crop the first image based on the coordinates ( 408 in Fig. 5) and to output a third image based on the cropped first image( 504 in Fig. 5).
LE does not expressly teach downscale the first image to generate a second image having lower resolution than the first image;
However, KIM teaches downscale the first image to generate a second image having lower resolution than the first image(1124 in Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LE and KIM, by downscaling first images in LE following the teaching of KIM, with motivation of reducing video bitrate (KIM, [0238]).
Regarding claim 2. LE in view of KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to downscale the first image after performing at least one of black level correction, white balancing or tone mapping on the first image( KIM, [0245], additional information, e.g., information of a color format applied … tone mapping information of a high dynamic range (HDR), etc., to the AI downscaler 1124).
Regarding claim 3. LE in view of KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to perform the at least one of the black level correction, the white balancing or the tone mapping on the first image based on data from the ISP circuitry the ISP circuitry to generate the data based on an input image preceding the first image( KIM, [0245], information of a high dynamic range (HDR)).
Regarding claim 4, LE in view of KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ROI corresponds to at least one of a detected face or a detected person in the second image( LE, 202 in Fig. 2A, 204 in Fig. 2B).
Claims 8-11 recite the medium in the apparatus of claim 1-4. Since LE also teaches a medium ([0060]), claims 8-11 are also rejected.
Claims 14-18 recite similar subject matter under 112(f) interpretation as in claims 1-4, thus are also rejected.
Claim(s) 5-7, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LE in view of KIM, further in view of Noy ( US 20150341596 )
Regarding claim 5, LE in view of KIM teaches the apparatus of claim 1.
LE in view of KIM does not expressly teach wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to apply padding to the ROI to generate the coordinates of the ROI, the padding proportional to detected dimensions of the ROI.
However, Noy teaches to apply padding to the ROI to generate the coordinates of the ROI, the padding proportional to detected dimensions of the ROI( [0052], The size W×H (number of pixels in the width and the height, respectively) of the padding segment 140 is defined by the MCU in order to complete the shape of the ROCP image to a rectangle that includes all the small segments of the strip).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of LE in view of KIM and Noy, by creating padding, as taught by Noy to the ROI detected by LE in view of KIM, with motivation to “consume minimal computing (encoding/decoding) and network resources”( Noy, [0052]).
Regarding claim 6, LE in view of KIM and Noy teaches the apparatus of claim 5, wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to scale the ROI coordinates based on a ratio of a first resolution of the first image and a second resolution of the second image( LE, 408 in Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 7, LE in view of KIM and Noy teaches the apparatus of claim 6, including the ISP circuitry, wherein the ISP circuitry is to scale the cropped first image to determine the third image, the third image scaled based on a resolution of a video display(LE, participating computing devices in a video conference have adequate computational and network resources to support 4K video (e.g., 3840×2160 pixels), the camera of some computing devices are limited to 1080p video (e.g., 1920×1080 pixels)).
Claims 19-20 recite similar subject matter under 112(f) interpretation as in claims 5-7, thus are also rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANGENG SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-3712. The examiner can normally be reached 8am to 5pm, EST, M-F.
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, Randolph Vincent can be reached at 571 272 8243. 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.
JIANGENG SUN
Examiner
Art Unit 2661
/Jiangeng Sun/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights