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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11954810. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this application is a continuation of 17/843,573 and this application claims with more words but in a broader manner the invention concisely claimed in 17/843,573.
The claims map to each other as follows
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 11954810
Claim 1
A method comprising:
accessing an image from a computing device;
generating a set of blur parameters for the image using a blur estimation neural network, the blur estimation neural network
trained based on a first dataset of clear images and a second dataset of blurry images,
the blur estimation neural network trained to estimate a blur of a blurry image and
generate a modified clear image by applying the estimated blur to a clear image;
identifying an augmented reality object associated with the image;
modifying the augmented reality object using the generated set of blur parameters; and
causing display, on a graphical user interface of the computing device, of the modified augmented reality object within the image.
Claim 1
A method comprising:
receiving, from one or more image sensors of a computer device, an image;
generating a set of noise parameters and a set of blur parameters for the image using a neural network
trained to:
receive a first dataset of clear images and a second dataset of noisy images;
for each clear image in the first dataset of clear images and for each noisy image in the second dataset of noisy images:
estimate random gaussian noise of the noisy image;
generate a modified clear image, the modified clear image generated by applying the estimated random gaussian noise to the clear image; and
compare the modified clear image with the noisy image using a noise discriminator network;
identifying an augmented reality object associated with the image;
modifying the augmented reality object using the set of noise parameters and the set of blur parameters; and
causing display, on a graphical user interface of the computer device, of the modified augmented reality object within the image.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
training a blur discriminator to identify images with a same blur; and
comparing the modified clear image with the blurry image using the blur discriminator.
Claim 1
compare the modified clear image with the noisy image using a noise discriminator network;
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
applying a high-pass filter to the modified clear image and the blurry image to separate image brightness from image blurriness in the modified clear image and the blurry image.
Claim 8
the high pass filter disentangles amounts of brightness of the modified clear image and the blurry image from amounts of blur of the modified clear image and the blurry image.
Claim 4
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 4
Claim 7
Claim 7
Claim 8
Claim 7
Claim 9
Claim 4
Claim 10
Claim 1
Claim 11
Claim 9
Claim 12
Claim 9
Claim 13
Claim 16
Claim 14
Claim 12
Claim 15
Claim 10
Claim 16
Claim 12
Claim 17
Claim 9
Claim 18
Claim 12
Claim 19
Claim 15
Claim 20
Claim 17
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.
Claims 1-2, 5, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cramer et al (US 20200022783 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cramer discloses a method (Cramer [0013], “methods”) comprising:
accessing an image from a computing device (Cramer [0013], “a current image … by a camera”);
generating a set of blur parameters for the image using a blur estimation neural network, the blur estimation neural network trained based on a first dataset of clear images and a second dataset of blurry images, the blur estimation neural network trained to estimate a blur of a blurry image and generate a modified clear image by applying the estimated blur to a clear image (Cramer [0027], “blurring functions”; [0029], “weights (parameters) for each term of the biquadratic function (generating a set of blur parameters for the image using a blur estimation neural network)”; [0030], “perform the linear regression … maximum likelihood estimation (the blur estimation neural network trained to estimate a blur of a blurry image)”; [0039], “neural network may have been trained using a training dataset comprising facial images (e.g., images of smiles showing teeth and gingiva), sketches associated with the facial images (e.g., showing contours of the facial images but possibly lacking color data) and blurred color images comprising color data associated with the facial images (the blur estimation neural network trained based on a first dataset of clear images and a second dataset of blurry images).”; [0077], “a simulated image 610 of a post-treatment patient smile as generated by a neural network … of a blurred color image 510 that includes a blurred color representation of the teeth 555 (a modified clear image by applying the estimated blur to a clear image)”).
modifying the augmented reality object using the generated set of blur parameters (Cramer [0076], “FIGS. 5-6 depict use of a local blurring function (e.g., a Gaussian blurring function) to generate a simulated image”); and
causing display, on a graphical user interface of the computing device, of the modified augmented reality object within the image (Cramer fig. 6-610).
Cramer does not expressly disclose (highlighted)
identifying an augmented reality object associated with the image;
However, Cramer suggests (highlighted)
identifying an augmented reality object associated with the image (Cramer [0076], “a blurred color image 510 including a blurred color representation (an augmented reality object associated with the image) of the teeth 555”);
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize an augmented reality object to facilitate a display of a modified real image. This would have been done to display a more realistic representation of the object of interest. See, for example, Cramer [0079], “generate a simulated image 810 that has accurate texture data that more closely corresponds to the colors that the teeth would have”
Regarding claim 2, Cramer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
training a blur discriminator to identify images with a same blur (Cramer [0039], “The neural network may have been trained using … blurred color images comprising color data associated with the facial images”); and
comparing the modified clear image with the blurry image using the blur discriminator (Cramer [0073], “processing logic may determine for each x,y pixel location an intensity for the color channel specified by the parametric function and compare that intensity value to an actual measured intensity value at that x,y pixel location.”).
Regarding claim 5, Cramer discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
causing display, on the graphical user interface of the computing device, a selectable user interface element to apply a blur effect, wherein the modified augmented reality object is displayed within the image in response to an interaction with the selectable user interface element (Cramer [0047], “first mask may be generated based on user input identifying the first region and/or the second region”).
Regarding claim 10, Cramer discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the image is accessed from one or more image sensors of the computing device (Cramer [0019], “an image capture device such as a camera and/or an intraoral scanner.”).
Claim 11 system a method which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 11.
Additionally Cramer discloses a system (Cramer [0013]).
Claim 12 system a method which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 2. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 2 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 12.
Claim 15 system a method which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 5. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 5 above is considered applicable to the system of claim 15.
Claim 20 system a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium which corresponds to the function performed by the method of claim 1. As such, the mapping and rejection of claim 1 above is considered applicable to the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 20.
Additionally, Cramer discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (Cramer [0080]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 6-9, 13-14, 16-17 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the double patenting rejections are addressed and if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 4, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Regarding claim 6, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Claims 7-9 are allowable for depending from claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Regarding claim 14, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Regarding claim 16, none of the prior art of record, alone or in combination, disclose the claim as recited.
Claims 17-19 are allowable for depending from claim 16.
Conclusion
See the notice of references cited (PTO-892) for prior art made of record, including art that is not relied upon but considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JITESH PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-3313. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Said A. Broome can be reached at (571) 272-2931. 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.
/JITESH PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612
Prosecution Insights