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) document submitted on Feburar27, 2020 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
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 use the word “unit” are 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 first storage unit configured to…, “a second storage unit configured to…, a first arithmetic operation unit configured to…,a third storage unit configured to…, a second arithmetic operation unit configured to…, a third arithmetic operation unit configured to…” in claim 1, “ fourth arithmetic operation unit configured to….” in claim 8, “ a fifth arithmetic operation unit configured to….” in claim 10, “ fifth arithmetic operation unit executes….” in claim 11, “ a sixth arithmetic operation unit configured to…” in claim 12, a first arithmetic operation unit configured to…., a third arithmetic operation unit configured to….” in claim 15.
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.
Claims 2-7,9,13,14,16,17,18 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as being dependent from claim 1.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as follows.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of identifying an information processing device comprising storage units, arithmetic operation units to correct pixel values of target pixels based on other pixel values, array data including coefficients . The steps of correcting pixel values based on other values and array data are mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of storage unit, arithmetic operation unit amounts to mere data gathering and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of the processing device, control device, display device, storage device, mechanical device, optical device in claim 17 are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer, display, image sensor .
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the non-transitory storage medium , the processing device, the display device, the storage device, the control device at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of acquiring array data including a plurality of coefficients used for correcting pixel value, correcting a pixel value of a first target pixel in the first array data, based on the pixel value of the first target pixel, a pixel value of a second target pixel adjacent to the first target pixel in the first array data, and the second array data, acquiring third array date, detecting a third target pixel, correcting a pixel value are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 1 is not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-14, 16,17,18 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-14, 16,17,18 are also not patent eligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of identifying an information processing device comprising arithmetic operation units to correct pixel values of target pixels based on other pixel values, array data including coefficients . The steps of correcting pixel values based on other values and array data are mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of arithmetic operation unit amounts to mere data gathering and thus is insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the first arithmetic operation unit, the third arithmetic operation unit are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of correcting pixel values based on data (including plurality of coefficients) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 15 is not patent eligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) steps of identifying an information processing device comprising arithmetic operation units to correct pixel values of target pixels based on other pixel values, array data including coefficients . The steps of correcting pixel values based on other values and array data are mathematical calculations and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of acquiring array data, correcting a pixel value amount to mere data gathering and mathematical calculation thus is insignificant extra-solution activity.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of correcting pixel values based on data (including plurality of coefficients) are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claim 19 is not patent eligible.
The dependent claim 20 also does not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claim 20 is also not patent eligible.
Allowable subject matter
Claims 1, 15, 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action .
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, prior art on record Yamauchi (US 20100134660 A1) discloses an information processing device (Para 25; a signal processing apparatus) comprising:
a first storage unit configured to store first array data based on a pixel value
output from each of a plurality of pixels (Para 67; The readout unit 31 reads out a signal from the pixel array PA300. That is, the readout unit 31 reads out the charges (signal) stored by the photoelectric conversion unit PD of each pixel of the pixel array PA300, or a signal corresponding to the charges, from each pixel.);
a second storage unit configured to store second array data including a plurality
of coefficients used for correcting the pixel value (Para 81,82; non-volatile memory 14 stores information used for color mixture correction processing, i.e., a first characteristic of color mixture information and a second characteristic of color mixture information.; The first characteristic of color mixture information includes a first coefficient table. The first coefficient table is a table in which, for each pixel, a position in the pixel array PA300 is associated with a first correction coefficient that has been determined in advance so as to correct a signal component that mixes into a pixel from adjacent pixels.) ;
a first arithmetic operation unit (the signal processing circuit (correction unit) 7 performs color mixture correction processing that corrects a signal that has been read out from a pixel for correction in the pixel array PA300 by the readout unit 3 ) configured to correct a pixel value of a first target pixel in the first array data, based on the pixel value of the first target pixel, a pixel value of a second target pixel adjacent to the first target pixel in the first array data, and the second array data ( Para 82-88; The first coefficient table is a table in which, for each pixel, a position in the pixel array PA300 is associated with a first correction coefficient that has been determined in advance so as to correct a signal component that mixes into a pixel from adjacent pixels.The second characteristic of color mixture information is information that indicates characteristics related to a signal component that leaks out to an adjacent pixel from a pixel corresponding to a position in the pixel array PA300 (see FIG. 2). The second characteristic of color mixture information includes a second coefficient table. The second coefficient table is a table in which, for each pixel, a position in the pixel array PA300 is associated with a second correction coefficient that has been determined in advance so as to correct a signal component that leaks out from a pixel to adjacent pixels.).
a third storage unit configured to store third array data based on the pixel value
output from the first arithmetic operation unit (Para 143; In this way, the non-volatile memory 14i stores, as the first characteristic of color mixture information, instead of the first coefficient table which is two-dimensional data, the first row correction data RD1 and the first column correction data CD1, which are each one-dimensional data. Also, the non-volatile memory 14i stores, as the second characteristic of color mixture information, instead of the second coefficient table which is two-dimensional data, the second row correction data RD2 and the second column correction data CD2, which are each one-dimensional data. ).
However, the prior art does not disclose “a second arithmetic operation unit configured to detect a third target pixel from the third array data; and a third arithmetic operation unit configured to correct a pixel value of the third target pixel based on the third array data”.
Regarding claim 15, prior art on record Yamauchi (US 20100134660 A1) discloses an information processing device (Para 25; a signal processing apparatus) comprising:
a first arithmetic operation unit (Para 85; the signal processing circuit (correction unit) 7 performs color mixture correction processing that corrects a signal that has been read out from a pixel for correction in the pixel array PA300 by the readout unit 31) configured to correct a pixel value of a first target pixel in first array data based on a pixel value output from each of a plurality of pixels (Para 82-88; The first coefficient table is a table in which, for each pixel, a position in the pixel array PA300 is associated with a first correction coefficient that has been determined in advance so as to correct a signal component that mixes into a pixel from adjacent pixels. The second characteristic of color mixture information is information that indicates characteristics related to a signal component that leaks out to an adjacent pixel from a pixel corresponding to a position in the pixel array PA300 (see FIG. 2). The second characteristic of color mixture information includes a second coefficient table. The second coefficient table is a table in which, for each pixel, a position in the pixel array PA300 is associated with a second correction coefficient that has been determined in advance so as to correct a signal component that leaks out from a pixel to adjacent pixels) , based on the pixel value of the first target pixel, a pixel value of a second target pixel adjacent to the first target pixel in the first array data, and second array data including a plurality of coefficients; and
However, the prior art does not disclose “a third arithmetic operation unit configured to correct a third target pixel detected from third array data based on a pixel value output from the first arithmetic operation unit”.
Regarding claim 19, the subject matter disclosed in claim 19 is similar to the subject matter disclosed in claim 1; therefore, claim 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101 for the same reasons as set forth in claim 1.
Claims 2-14, 16,17,18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action and also rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC § 101, set forth in this Office action and also rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as being dependent from claim 19.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XI WANG whose telephone number is (469)295-9155. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am-5:00 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, Sinh Tran can be reached on 571-272-7564. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XI WANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights