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 .
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 101
The limitations “applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values” is considered a practical application of filtering image data for providing a refined digital image.
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.
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 processing module, a covariance identification module, a filtering module in claims 14, 15, 16, 17 (The modules are a processor in conjunction with a software algorithm).
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.
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.
Claim 1, 14, 18 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the notion of the claims does refer to the same invention and claim 1 of the current application corresponds with claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248. Claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248 anticipate claim 1 of the current application because it includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of the current application.
Claims 14 and 18 of the current application are merely a different statutory category to claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the statutory category of claims 1 and 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248 from method to an image processing unit and a non-transitory computer readable medium as it would achieve predictable results performing the same functions as the method.
Current Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248
1. An image processing method comprising: determining a set of one or more filtered pixel values, wherein the one or more filtered pixel values represent a result of processing image data using a set of one or more filtering functions; identifying a total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions; and applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more refined pixel values, wherein the refinement filtering function has a covariance that is determined based on the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions;
1. An image processing method comprising: determining a set of one or more filtered pixel values, wherein the one or more filtered pixel values represent a result of processing image data using a set of more than one filtering function; identifying a total covariance of the set of more than one filtering function; and applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more refined pixel values, wherein the refinement filtering function has a covariance that is determined based on the total covariance of the set of more than one filtering function;
and wherein said identifying the total covariance of the set of more than one filtering function comprises: identifying, for each of the more than one filtering functions, a respective individual covariance; and summing the identified individual covariances.
wherein said applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values comprises applying a sharpening function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more sharpened pixel values, wherein the covariance of the sharpening function represents the negative of the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions.
3. The method of claim 1, wherein said applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values comprises applying a sharpening function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more sharpened pixel values, wherein the covariance of the sharpening function represents the negative of the total covariance of the set of more than one filtering function.
Below is claim mapping between the current application and U.S. Patent No. 12,205,248
Current Application
1
14
18
US 12,205,248
3, 1
3, 1
3, 1
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 14, 18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the double patenting rejections, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Greisen et al. (“Analysis and VLSI Implementation of EWA Rendering for Real-Time HD Video Applications”, IEEE, 2012)(Hereinafter referred to as Greisen)
Regarding claim 1, Greisen teaches An image processing method (In this paper, we employ an elliptical-weighted average (EWA) rendering approach to 2-D image resampling. We extend the classical EWA framework for increased visual quality and provide a very large scale integration architecture for efficient view rendering. See abstract) comprising:
determining a set of one or more filtered pixel values, wherein the one or more filtered pixel values represent a result of processing image data using a set of one or more filtering functions (EWA splatting employs multidimensional elliptical Gaussian filters. For a covariance matrix V a Gaussian filter is defined as, See equation 3, section D. EWA Splatting)( where Vi … are the diagonal interpolation and antialiasing covariance matrices, respectively See section D. EWA Splatting, paragraph 3);
identifying a total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions (EWA splatting employs multidimensional elliptical Gaussian filters. For a covariance matrix V a Gaussian filter is defined as, See equation 3, section D. EWA Splatting)( where Vi … are the diagonal interpolation and antialiasing covariance matrices, respectively See section D. EWA Splatting, paragraph 3)(Identification of covariance Vi corresponding to the interpolation filter);
and applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more refined pixel values, wherein the refinement filtering function has a covariance that is determined based on the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions (The antialiasing function is the refinement filtering function and this is based on an antialiasing covariance matrix. See right col., page 579, section D, EWA Splatting), but is silent to wherein said applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values comprises applying a sharpening function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more sharpened pixel values, wherein the covariance of the sharpening function represents the negative of the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “wherein said applying a refinement filtering function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values comprises applying a sharpening function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more sharpened pixel values, wherein the covariance of the sharpening function represents the negative of the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions.” Of claim 1 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 1 and thus claim 1 is allowed.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “wherein the filtering module is configured to apply a sharpening function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more sharpened pixel values, wherein the covariance of the sharpening function represents the negative of the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions. ” Of claim 14 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 14 and thus claim 14 is allowed.
The prior art of record alone or in combination is silent to the limitations “wherein the filtering module is configured to apply a sharpening function to the set of one or more filtered pixel values to determine a set of one or more sharpened pixel values, wherein the covariance of the sharpening function represents the negative of the total covariance of the set of one or more filtering functions.” Of claim 18 when read in light of the rest of the limitations in claim 18 and thus claim 18 is allowed.
Claims 2-13, 15-17 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter because they depend on a claim that contains allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Daiki Nakagawa (US 2020/0302577)(Hereinafter referred to as Nakagawa), generally teaches noise reduction processing and utilizing a covariance matrix (See paragraph [0034]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS R WILSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0936. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00PM.
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, Kee Tung can be reached at (572)-272-7794. 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.
/NICHOLAS R WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights