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 .
Application has pending claims 1-11
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the pixels belonging to a specific class”. The disclosure should be “the respective pixels” to draw antecedence to “respective pixels of the partial image”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 9-10, these claims recite the following limitations which are found to be abstract ideas not reciting a practical application or significantly more, with claim 1 being exemplary:
perform division processing of dividing an image into a plurality of partial images, the division processing being processing of dividing the image such that each of the plurality of partial images has an overlapping area that overlaps another partial image adjacent to the partial image at an edge part of the partial image; perform, individually for each of the plurality of partial images, calculation processing of calculating numerical values for respective pixels of the partial image, the numerical values being for use in class classification and each being related to a probability of a corresponding pixel among the pixels belonging to a specific class; and perform integration processing of integrating the numerical values individually calculated for the plurality of partial images to achieve a size which the image had before the division processing. (abstract idea as mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I), dividing an image can be done with mathematical parameters, as well as the calculation of numerical values. Classification using the probability of pixel values is also a mathematical concept and does not amount to significantly more. The same is also applied for integrating the numerical values to achieve a size which the image had before; this is also a mathematical process).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for the following reasons.
Claims 1 and 10 further recite additional elements: claim 1 is directed towards a system comprising a memory, and a processor, and claim 10 is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable media. While a non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 10, and the processor and memory of claim 1 are additional elements, they are not sufficient to recite a practical application of the abstract ideas recited in claims 1 and 10 as they amount to mere generic computer elements and thus amount to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. see MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, the above recited additional elements from claims 1 and 9-10 do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. Rather, the additional elements disclosed above perform well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Therefore, independent claims 1 and 9-10 are directed towards an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding claims 2-7 and 11, the limitations are merely directed towards further abstract ideas, specifically mathematical concepts per MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(I)).
Finally, it is noted that as per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), a practical application and thus subject matter eligibility can be found when the following two requirements are met per a two-step analysis: In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Applicant is invited to provide remarks regarding the specific locations in the Specification of the disclosed technical improvement per MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) to assist in identifying limitations that, if amended into the claims, could overcome the present rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “a plurality of partial images” in page 1 of the Claims. Claim 1 already discloses “a plurality of partial images” so it is unclear if this is supposed to be the same partial images or a different plurality of partial images. For the purposes of examination, claim 3’s “plurality of partial images” is interpreted to be the same as claim 1’s.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the pixel” in page 3 of the Claims. It is unclear what this is trying to draw antecedence from, whether it is each pixel of each of the plurality of partial images or a different pixel. For the purposes of examination, the pixel is interpreted to be one of the each pixels of the plurality of partial images. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ESENLIK SEMIH WO-2022128105-A1, hereinafter SEMIH, in combination with Walter Georgescu US-20220076411-A1, hereinafter Walter, and TONG WU WO-2022127225-A1, hereinafter WU.
As per claim 1, SEMIH discloses an image processing apparatus comprising (see SEMIH page 17/114 and FIG. 1): at least one processor configured to (see SEMIH page 17/114, wherein a processor is disclosed): perform division processing of dividing an image into a plurality of partial images (see SEMIH page 49/114 and FIG. 17A, wherein the input image is divided into two or more sub-sets), the division processing being processing of dividing the image such that each of the plurality of partial images has an overlapping area that overlaps another partial image adjacent to the partial image at an edge part of the partial image (see SEMIH page 50/114 and FIG. 17A, wherein the image is divided into overlapping regions);
PNG
media_image1.png
267
220
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(As seen in FIG. 17A, relevant portion reproduced for convince)perform, individually for each of the plurality of partial images, calculation processing of calculating numerical values for the partial image (see SEMIH page 50/114, wherein the calculation of the sizes of the total receptive field, using the sizes of Li is disclosed. The sizes of Li serve as the numerical values. Li is any of the subsets L1 to L4, for example. Additionally, see SEMIH page 51/114, wherein it is clarified that each Li is processed independently, so, for example, that the processing of L1 only depends on the sample of L1 and not on any other sample outside of L1); andperform processing of the numerical values individually calculated for the plurality of partial images to achieve a size which the image had before the division processing (see SEMIH page 51, wherein each size of Li (the numerical values are previously disclosed, and that each Li is processed individually), which is the total receptive field of Ri, is processed to obtain each Ri (or R-cropi if there are overlapping regions that need to be cropped). The total receptive fields of Ri are concatenated to obtain the complete reconstructed picture. The output picture is identical to the input as disclosed in page 53 lines 5-6).
However, while SEMIH discloses calculating numerical values and achieving a size which the image had before processing, it fails to explicitly disclose where Walter discloses:perform, individually for each of the plurality of partial images (see Walter ¶100-101, wherein a patch is a divided portion of an input image), calculation processing of calculating numerical values for respective pixels of the partial image, the numerical values being for use in class classification and each being related to a probability of a corresponding pixel among the pixels belonging to a specific class (see Walter ¶108-110, wherein a vector of probabilities for each pixel within a slide image is disclosed. The neural network outputs a class label for each individual pixel of a given patch, i.e., a divided section of an image. The vectors are the numerical values for respective pixels which classify either areas as v[0], v[1], or v[2]); andperform stitching processing of stitching the numerical values individually calculated for the plurality of partial images to achieve a size which the image had before the division processing (see Walter ¶121-125, wherein the probability maps of each image patch, which contain probabilities at each location (x, y), i.e., the numerical values, are stitched back together into a probability map of the original image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify SEMIH’s apparatus by using Walter’s teaching by including respective pixels to the numerical values of the partial image, as well as stitching the partial images in order to further classify each pixel within the image patches, then to recombine the patches with the classifications.
While SEMIH, in combination with Walter, discloses stitching (see Walter ¶121-125, wherein the probability maps of each image patch are stitched back together into a probability map of the original image), it fails to explicitly disclose where WU teaches:perform integration processing of integrating the numerical values to achieve a size which the image had before the division processing (see WU page 6/41, wherein the image stitches are integrated using the first and second pixel information, i.e., the numerical values, to generate a spliced image of the original image).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify SEMIH’s, in combination with Walter, apparatus by using WU’s teaching by including integration to the stitching in order to further clarify that the combination of the partial images is done by integration at the image overlapping regions.
As per claim 2, SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the numerical values is the probability of the corresponding pixel belonging to the specific class or a logit of the probability (see Walter ¶109, wherein a vector of probabilities for each pixel within a slide image is disclosed. The vectors are the numerical values for respective pixels which classify either areas as v[0], v[1], or v[2]).
As per claim 3, SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform, in the integration processing, arithmetic processing in which the numerical values in a common overlapping area of a plurality of partial images that form the common overlapping area are an arithmetic operation target (see WU page 9/41 Step 409, wherein an average, i.e., statistical value, in the overlapped areas is calculated when the weighted pixel value is greater than 1, i.e., arithmetic operation target).
As per claim 4, SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform processing of calculating a statistical value of the numerical values that are the arithmetic operation target (see WU page 9/41 Steps 408-409, wherein an average value of the pixel values is calculated ((pixel1+pixel2)/2) during image stitching for pixels whose weight is greater than 1).
As per claim 5, SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, fails to explicitly disclose where WU teaches:The image processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform an arithmetic operation based on pixel positions, on the numerical values that are the arithmetic operation target (see WU page 8-9/41 Steps 404-408, wherein the pixel coordinates are selected in the overlap and non-overlapped areas, then the average pixel values of the overlapping pixel points are calculated).
As per claim 6, SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform processing of calculating a weighted average using weight coefficients based on the pixel positions, on the numerical values that are the arithmetic operation target (see WU page 9/41 Step 408, wherein a weighted average using a preset weight that is multiplied with the pixel value, i.e., coefficient of the pixel value, of the pixel point
P
n
to acquire the average pixel value
P
Q
).
As per claim 9-10, the rationale provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein. In addition, the apparatus of claim 1 corresponds to the method of claim 9 and the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10.
As per claim 11, SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to output, in the integration processing, the numerical values calculated for each pixel of each of the plurality of partial images as the integrated value for the pixel without any processing, in an area other than the overlapping area of the partial image (see WU page 6/41 Step 304, wherein the integration stitching of the images is disclosed. It is further detailed in pages 8-9/41 Steps 404 and 408, wherein the pixel values for the non-overlapping areas are processed separately, such that they only use the default weight, i.e., without additional processing, while the overlapping areas use an average value as disclosed in Step 409).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, in further view of Shutao Li Probabilistic Fusion of Pixel-Level and Superpixel-Level Hyperspectral Image Classification, hereinafter Li.
As per claim 7, while SEMIH, in combination with Walter and WU, fails to explicitly disclose where Li teaches:The image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the class classification on the image, based on an integrated value obtained by integrating the numerical values in the integration processing (see Li page 13/15 Section V with Figure 1 [depicting the classification method on the HSI image], page 5-6/15 Section C, Section IV.A, and Algorithm 1, a superpixel-level classifier performing the classification method on the HSI image: wherein a class estimation is generated by integrating [e.g. via equation 16] the joint probabilities of the pixel-level probabilities [wherein pixel level probalitiies correspond to the recited limitation of “the numerical values”], calculated with weights wi [wherein the weight corresponds to the recited claim limitation “an integrated value”] on page 4/15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify SEMIH’s, in combination with Walter and WU, apparatus by using Li’s teaching by including the class classification to the integrated numerical values in order to accurately more accurately predict a class within an image using the probabilities of the stitched pixel values.
As per claim 8, SEMIH, in combination with Walter, WU, and Li, discloses the image processing apparatus according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is configured to perform the class classification using an Argmax function or a threshold value, based on the integrated value (see Li page 6/15 Section IV.A, page 5-6/15 Section C and Algorithm 1, a superpixel-level classifier performing the classification method: wherein a class estimation is generated by integrating via equation 16
PNG
media_image2.png
163
373
media_image2.png
Greyscale
that uses an argmax function with weights wi [wherein the weight corresponds to the recited claim limitation “an integrated value”]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bradley Obas Felix whose telephone number is (703)756-1314. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 5712728243. 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.
/BRADLEY O FELIX/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
