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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2025 and 05/19/2025 is/are compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Office Action Summary
Claim(s) 22 and 26-28 is/are interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 21-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Wu (US 2007/0098295 A1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Wu (US 2007/0098295 A1), further in view of Ho (US 2008/0101716 A1).
Claim(s) 12, 15-16, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Ho (2008/0101716 A1).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Ho (2008/0101716 A1), further in view of Wu (US 2007/0098295 A1).
Claim(s) 17, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Hojo et al (US 2011/0181744 A1).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Hojo et al (US 2011/0181744 A1), further in view of Nam et al (US 2024/0171787 A1).
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 8-11, 13, and 18-19 is/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.
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: “an imaging unit” in claim 22, “a reduction unit” in claim(s) 26-28, “a correction unit” in claim 26, “a sharpening unit” in claim 27, and “a compression encoding unit” in claim 28.
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
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 21-23, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Wu (US 2007/0098295 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 1, 23, and 26, Yamada teaches an image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors (Figure 1; and Paragraph [0262]) that execute the instructions:
to reduce turbulence in an image based on turbulence information (Figure 1A; Figure 1C; Paragraph [0074]: “the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 averages temporally successive n input images including the first input image”; Paragraph [0082] – Paragraph [0085]: “The parameter determination unit 122 determines a parameter to be used for combining plural frames, according to an atmospheric turbulence intensity determined by the determination unit 110 […] the parameter determination unit 122 increases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, and decreases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is low”; Paragraph [0150]: “the correction unit 120 includes: the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 configured to combine plural frames including the first input image, to correct the atmospheric turbulence in the first input image”; and Paragraph [0152] – Paragraph [0153]: “the number of frames is increased if an atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, thus allowing great atmospheric turbulence to be corrected appropriately”); and
to correct, based on the turbulence information (Figure 1C; Paragraph [0081]: “the image sharpening unit 123 sharpens an image in which atmospheric turbulence has been corrected by the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121”; and Paragraph [0086]: “the parameter determination unit 122b determines the filter size such that the greater the atmospheric turbulence intensity is, the higher a degree at which an image is sharpened by the image sharpening unit 123 is […] the parameter determination unit 122b increases a filter size of the unsharp mask with an increase in the atmospheric turbulence intensity”).
Yamada fails to teach to correct, based on (Formula 1; Figure 3 - Figure 6; Paragraph [0025] – Paragraph [0026]: “Local contrast detection is performed according to a maximum difference between luminance values within a predetermined window in the local area”; Paragraph [0027] – Paragraph [0028]: “the more pronounced an edge in the predetermined window, the larger the local difference value outputted by the local difference unit 208 […] the adjustment unit 210 performs a non-linear mapping between the local difference value (local contrast) and an edge gain value”; and Paragraph [0035]: “the multiplier 218 multiplies the initial feature component FINIT by the non-linear edge gain value to generate an edge compensated feature component F […] In order to enhanced the sharpness of soft edges in the original image signal Y, the combining unit 206 such as an adder then adds the delayed image YDELAY being outputted from the delay unit 204 with the edge compensated feature component F outputted from the edge compensated feature detector 202 to thereby generate the resulting image YOUT having enhanced sharpness”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yamada and Wu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to adapt Yamada's sharpening of the turbulence corrected image according to the local luminance contrast of the image, as taught by Wu, thereby providing appropriate edge enhancement according to local image characteristics while compensating for blur resulting from Yamada's atmospheric turbulence correction. This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 5, Yamada as modified by Wu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Yamada teaches wherein emphasis of the contrast of the image is increased as an amount of turbulence indicated by the turbulence information increases (Figure 1C; and Paragraph [0086]: “the greater the atmospheric turbulence intensity is, the higher a degree at which an image is sharpened by the image sharpening unit 123 is […] the parameter determination unit 122b increases a filter size of the unsharp mask with an increase in the atmospheric turbulence intensity. In this manner, the higher the atmospheric turbulence intensity is, the more a degree of image sharpening can be increased, thus achieving a reduction of blurring due to atmospheric turbulence in an image and blurring caused by averaging images”).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Yamada as modified by Wu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Yamada teaches wherein emphasis of the contrast of the image is increased as an intensity of the reduction increases (Figure 1C; Paragraph [0083] – Paragraph [0085]: “the more input images are averaged, the greater effect of atmospheric turbulence elimination is achieved. Conversely, the less input images are averaged, the smaller atmospheric turbulence elimination effect is achieved […] the parameter determination unit 122 increases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, and decreases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is low”; and Paragraph [0086]: “the greater the atmospheric turbulence intensity is, the higher a degree at which an image is sharpened by the image sharpening unit 123 is […] the parameter determination unit 122b increases a filter size of the unsharp mask with an increase in the atmospheric turbulence intensity. In this manner, the higher the atmospheric turbulence intensity is, the more a degree of image sharpening can be increased, thus achieving a reduction of blurring due to atmospheric turbulence in an image and blurring caused by averaging images”).
Regarding claim(s) 21, Yamada as modified by Wu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Yamada teaches wherein the image is an input image or a respective one of pixel blocks obtained by dividing the input image (Figure 1A; Paragraph [0069]: “The correction units 120 and 120a correct atmospheric turbulence in the first input image according to the atmospheric turbulence intensity determined by the determination units 110 and 110a”; and Paragraph [0072]: “The atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 combines plural frames including the first input image, to correct atmospheric turbulence in the first input image”).
Regarding claim(s) 22, Yamada as modified by Wu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, where Yamada teaches further comprising an imaging unit (Paragraph [0259]: “the present disclosure can be achieved as a monitoring camera which includes one of the image processing devices described above [...] The monitoring camera according to the present disclosure is, for example, a camera installed to capture images outside”).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Wu (US 2007/0098295 A1), further in view of Ho (US 2008/0101716 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 4, Yamada as modified by Wu teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein, whether the change in luminance is large based on the number of edge pixels in the image or an edge intensity in the image is determined, and in a case where it is determined that the change in luminance is large, the correction is performed, and in a case where it is determined that the change in luminance is small, the correction is not performed.
However, Ho teaches wherein, whether the change in luminance is large based on the number of edge pixels in the image or an edge intensity in the image is determined (Figure 1; Paragraph [0024]: “The edge detector 130, such as a Sobel spatial filter mask, also receives this original image Io, detects the edge of the image, and outputs corresponding M edge detecting values E(1) ~ E(M) according to the different edge intensities […] The higher edge intensity represents the clearer edge of the image. The lower edge intensity represents the unclear edge of the image”), and in a case where it is determined that the change in luminance is large, the correction is performed, and in a case where it is determined that the change in luminance is small, the correction is not performed (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0025]: “If the edge detecting value E(J) is smaller than a threshold value, for example, one noise standard deviation, it represents that the region contains a lot of noise, the sharpening parameter P(J) corresponding thereto is set as 0 to suppress the noises. If the edge detecting value E(J) is greater than a threshold value, for example one noise standard deviation, the sharpening parameter P(J) is set greater than 0”; and Paragraph [0030]: “When the edge detecting value of one original image is higher than a threshold value, the corresponding edge region of the high frequency image is enhanced by selecting the corresponding sharpening parameter so that the sharpness of the output image is enhanced”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine Yamada as modified by Wu with Ho before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to distinguish image regions containing meaningful edges from low-edge-intensity/noise regions, thereby performing sharpening on sufficiently strong edge regions while suppressing unnecessary enhancement of low-edge-intensity regions and noise. This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 12, 15-16, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Ho (2008/0101716 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 12, 24, and 27, Yamada teaches an image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors (Figure 1; and Paragraph [0262]) that execute the instructions:
to reduce turbulence in an image based on turbulence information (Figure 1A; Figure 1C; Paragraph [0074]: “the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 averages temporally successive n input images including the first input image”; Paragraph [0082] – Paragraph [0085]: “The parameter determination unit 122 determines a parameter to be used for combining plural frames, according to an atmospheric turbulence intensity determined by the determination unit 110 […] the parameter determination unit 122 increases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, and decreases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is low”; Paragraph [0150]: “the correction unit 120 includes: the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 configured to combine plural frames including the first input image, to correct the atmospheric turbulence in the first input image”; and Paragraph [0152] – Paragraph [0153]: “the number of frames is increased if an atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, thus allowing great atmospheric turbulence to be corrected appropriately”); and
Yamada fails to teach to process, based on the turbulence information, a high-frequency component in a reduced image generated by the reduction, and generate an image obtained by adding the processed high-frequency component to the reduced image. However, Ho teaches to process, based on the turbulence information, a high-frequency component in a reduced image generated by the reduction, and generate an image obtained by adding the processed high-frequency component to the reduced image (Figure 1; Paragraph [0023]: “The low-pass filter 110, such as a low-pass spatial filter mask, receives (i.e. filters) an original image Io and outputs a low frequency image L. The high-pass filter 120, such as a high-pass spatial filter mask, also receives (i.e. filters) the original image Io and outputs a high frequency image H.”; and Paragraph [0026]: “The operating unit 150 adjusts the high frequency image H correspondingly according to the sharpening parameters P(1)~P(M) to obtain an adjusted high frequency image Hp […] The operating unit 150 combines the low frequency image L with the adjusted high frequency image Hp to obtain the output image Ip”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yamada and Ho before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to reduce the blurring introduced by Yamada's atmospheric turbulence correction by processing the high-frequency image component and combining the adjusted high-frequency component with the turbulence-corrected image, thereby enhancing image sharpness after turbulence reduction. This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Regarding claim(s) 15, Yamada as modified by Ho teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 12, where Ho teaches wherein, in a case when it is determined that a spatial change in luminance in the image is large, the processing and the generation are performed (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0024]: “The edge detector 130, such as a Sobel spatial filter mask, also receives this original image Io, detects the edge of the image, and outputs corresponding M edge detecting values E(1)~E(M) according to the different edge intensities […] The higher edge intensity represents the clearer edge of the image”; Paragraph [0025]: “If the edge detecting value E(J) is smaller than a threshold value, for example, one noise standard deviation, it represents that the region contains a lot of noise, the sharpening parameter P(J) corresponding thereto is set as 0 to suppress the noises. If the edge detecting value E(J) is greater than a threshold value, for example one noise standard deviation, the sharpening parameter P(J) is set greater than 0”; and Paragraph [0030]: “When the edge detecting value of one original image is higher than a threshold value, the corresponding edge region of the high frequency image is enhanced by selecting the corresponding sharpening parameter so that the sharpness of the output image is enhanced”).
Regarding claim(s) 16, Yamada as modified by Ho teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 12, where Ho teaches wherein the processing and the generation are performed on an edge portion having an edge intensity that is greater than or equal to a threshold (Figure 1; Figure 2; Paragraph [0024]: “The edge detector 130, such as a Sobel spatial filter mask, also receives this original image Io, detects the edge of the image, and outputs corresponding M edge detecting values E(1)~E(M) according to the different edge intensities”; Paragraph [0025]: “If the edge detecting value E(J) is greater than a threshold value, for example one noise standard deviation, the sharpening parameter P(J) is set greater than 0”; and Paragraph [0030]: “When the edge detecting value of one original image is higher than a threshold value, the corresponding edge region of the high frequency image is enhanced by selecting the corresponding sharpening parameter so that the sharpness of the output image is enhanced”).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Ho (2008/0101716 A1), further in view of Wu (US 2007/0098295 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 14, Yamada as modified by Ho teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 12, but do not specifically teach wherein a low-amplitude signal of the high-frequency component removed. However, Wu teaches wherein a low-amplitude signal of the high-frequency component removed (Figure 2; Figure 3; Paragraph [0022]: “Each of the feature extraction units 212, 214 extracts, filters, and amplifies a particular type of feature from the incoming image Y […] That is, the first feature extractor 220 filters the incoming image Y to extract horizontal edges, the first core function 222 applies a coring function that brings data that is under a first threshold to zero”; Paragraph [0023]: “A non-linear coring function is applied to the data. As is shown in FIG. 3, only data on either side of a noise level is used. The noise level is specified using a threshold value Th. It should be noted that the particular threshold Th used by the first core function 222 can be different than that used by the second core function 228. The coring function serves to eliminate noise in the data and brings data that is under the threshold to zero”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine Yamada as modified by Ho with Wu before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to remove low-level components from the extracted high-frequency image data before enhancement, thereby preventing low-level noise from being amplified during sharpening while preserving high-frequency edge information useful for improving image sharpness. This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 17, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Hojo et al (US 2011/0181744 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 17, 25, and 28, Yamada teaches an image processing apparatus comprising one or more memories storing instructions and one or more processors (Figure 1; and Paragraph [0262]) that execute the instructions:
to reduce turbulence in an image based on turbulence information (Figure 1A; Figure 1C; Paragraph [0074]: “the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 averages temporally successive n input images including the first input image”; Paragraph [0082] – Paragraph [0085]: “The parameter determination unit 122 determines a parameter to be used for combining plural frames, according to an atmospheric turbulence intensity determined by the determination unit 110 […] the parameter determination unit 122 increases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, and decreases the value of n if the atmospheric turbulence intensity is low”; Paragraph [0150]: “the correction unit 120 includes: the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 configured to combine plural frames including the first input image, to correct the atmospheric turbulence in the first input image”; and Paragraph [0152] – Paragraph [0153]: “the number of frames is increased if an atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, thus allowing great atmospheric turbulence to be corrected appropriately”).
Yamada fails to teach to compress and encode the image at a compression ratio that accords with the turbulence information. However, Hojo teaches to compress and encode the image at a compression ratio that accords with the turbulence information (Figure 1; Figure 4; Figure 5; Paragraph [0016] – Paragraph [0017]: “a compression/decompression circuit 107 which compresses and decompresses an image using JPEG, MPEG, etc. […] The CPU 108 also sends an operation request and a compression ratio to the compression/decompression circuit 107, and receives a completion notification from the compression/decompression circuit 107”; Paragraph [0020]: “The electronic shake processing circuit 104 detects the shake information (motion amount) of an input image on a shake block-by-shake block basis […] the shake information of an input image may be obtained on a frame-by-frame basis”; and Paragraph [0023]: “the average value A2 of the shake information calculated in S504 is compared with the threshold 2 set in S502. If the average value A2 of the shake information is greater than the threshold 2, it is determined that the input image is moving, and control proceeds to S508, in which the image compression ratio is increased. When the average value A2 of the shake information is smaller than the threshold 2, it is determined that the input image is not moving, and control proceeds to S510, in which the image compression ratio is decreased”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Yamada and Hojo before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to adapt the compression of Yamada's turbulence-processed image according to detected image motion, as taught by Hojo, thereby setting an appropriate compression ratio according to image conditions while reducing or preventing degradation in image quality. This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamada (US 2015/0332443 A1) in view of Hojo et al (US 2011/0181744 A1), further in view of Nam et al (US 2024/0171787 A1).
Regarding claim(s) 20, Yamada as modified by Hojo teaches the image processing apparatus according to claim 17, where Yamada teaches (Paragraph [0078]: “if the atmospheric turbulence correction unit 121 averages images, the averaged image may further blur in addition to the blurring due to atmospheric turbulence in the image. The greater the number of images to be averaged is, the more blurry an averaged image, namely, an image whose atmospheric turbulence has been corrected appears”; and Paragraph [0153]: “the number of frames is increased if an atmospheric turbulence intensity is high, thus allowing great atmospheric turbulence to be corrected appropriately”).
Yamada and Hojo fail to teach wherein the compression ratio is decreased as an intensity of the reduction increases. However, Nam teaches wherein the compression ratio is decreased as an intensity of the reduction increases (Figure 8; Paragraphs [0135] – Paragraph [0137]: “the compression magnification and the compression ratio are in inverse proportion to each other […] as the bbp value decreases, the compression ratio decreases and the compression magnification may increase”; Paragraphs [0138] – Paragraph [0139]: “the meaning of increasing the strength of the filter may mean passing image signal of a low frequency band and blocking image signal of a high frequency band”; and Paragraph [0141] – Paragraph [0142]: “As the bbp value increases (compression ratio increases), the filter strength decreases, and as the bbp value decreases (compression ratio decreases), the filter strength may increase […] As the bbp value decreases, it means that the network environment is poor, and thus, a high frequency component image signal may be blocked by increasing the strength of the filter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further combine Yamada as modified by Hojo with Nam before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for this combination of references would have been to coordinate the compression ratio with the strength of image filtering, as taught by Nam, thereby selecting a lower compression ratio as the strength of image filtering increases to appropriately control image quality in view of the degree of image processing being applied. This motivation is supported by KSR exemplary rationale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. MPEP 2141 (III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2-3, 6, 8-11, 13, and 18-19 is/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.
Relevant Prior Art Directed to State of Art
Pan et al (US 2020/0286209 A1) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Pan discloses a method of removing turbulence from an image of a time ordered sequence of image frames, the method comprising: removing effects of turbulence from a first image of the time ordered sequence of frames to create an initial corrected image frame; determining a number of iterations required to achieve a desired amount of turbulence removal for a subsequent image in the sequence and satisfy a latency constraint and an available memory capacity, the latency and the available memory capacity relating to a computing system implementing the turbulence removal; determining, based on the number of required iterations, a minimum set of image frames required to remove turbulence from the subsequent image, wherein said minimum set of image frames is stored in the available memory and comprises: a number of image frames of time ordered sequence of image frames, a number of image frames generated in an intermediate iteration of turbulence removal and the initial corrected image frame; and using said minimum set of image frames to remove turbulence from the subsequent image of time ordered sequence of image frames of the video to output a subsequent corrected image.
Suzuki (US 8,545,025 B2) are relevant prior art not applied in the rejection(s) above. Suzuki discloses An image processing apparatus comprising: an image information input unit which receives input of a first image information; and a sharpness adjustment unit which divides a screen image corresponding to the first image information into a plurality of areas and performs a sharpness adjustment for each of the divided areas to output a second image information, wherein the sharpness adjustment unit performs the sharpness adjustment using an adjustment value which is previously determined for each of the divided areas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONGBONG NAH whose telephone number is (571) 272-1361. The examiner can normally be reached M - F: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, ONEAL MISTRY can be reached on 313-446-4912. 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.
/JONGBONG NAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights