33DETAILED 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 .
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 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.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 17 on page 3 in line 1, the spelling should be changed from “wherein, in a case whe” to “wherein, in a case when”.
Lines are counted from the beginning of each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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: “a determination unit configured to…, an interpolation unit configured to…, and a reduction unit configured to…” in claim 1.
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
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 of this title, 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, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140072214 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 20250173829 A1 to Hanwell.
As to claims 1, 19 and 20, Tanaka discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
a determination unit configured to acquire an image (Tanaka ¶0028-0030, 0044, 0051, memory receiving the captured image);
an interpolation unit configured to interpolate an interpolation signal (Tanaka ¶0045, 0046, 0052, interpolating image to produce an interpolated image signal, demosaicing); and
a reduction unit configured to reduce noise of the image in which the interpolation signal has been interpolated (Tanaka ¶0053, NR processing unit 32 removes noise from the interpolated image signal).
Tanaka does not expressly disclose a determination unit configured to acquire an image including a target pixel as a pixel of a local positive peak signal and captured by a photon-counting image sensor; and
an interpolation unit configured to interpolate an interpolation signal to a peripheral pixel as a pixel around the target pixel of the image.
Hanwell discloses a determination unit configured to acquire an image including a target pixel as a pixel of a local positive peak signal and captured by a photon-counting image sensor (Hanwell Fig. 1-7, ¶0039, 0042-0044, 0046, 0049, 0079, 0100, image processor receives an image from the image sensor, e.g. number of photons captured by the sensor, including pixel intensity values having local maximum value); and
an interpolation unit configured to interpolate an interpolation signal to a peripheral pixel as a pixel around the target pixel of the image (Hanwell Fig. 1-7, ¶0036, 0039, 0087-0091, interpolation unit 16 to interpolate from filtered values at the nodes closest to a pixel of the image).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka by a determination unit configured to acquire an image including a target pixel as a pixel of a local positive peak signal and captured by a photon-counting image sensor; and an interpolation unit configured to interpolate an interpolation signal to a peripheral pixel as a pixel around the target pixel of the image as disclosed by Hanwell. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide local values at a particular pixel location allowing interpolation to be performed on the pixels thereby increasing the image quality.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140072214 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 20250173829 A1 to Hanwell and in further view of US Pub. No. 20120182323 A1 to Omi.
As to claim 2, Tanaka and Hanwell do not expressly disclose wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel.
Omi discloses wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel (Omi Fig. 1-5, ¶0063, 0066, determining unit to determining if the defective pixel is present/absent based on the preset value of the imaging system.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and Hanwell by wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel as disclosed by Omi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to accurately determine the pixel of its presence/absence using the preset value of the device thereby enhancing the pixel evaluation.
As to claim 3, Tanaka and Hanwell do not expressly disclose wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel based on a setting value of an image capturing apparatus that has captured the image.
Omi discloses wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel based on a setting value of an image capturing apparatus that has captured the image (Omi Fig. 1-5, ¶0063, 0066, determining unit to determining if the defective pixel is present/absent based on the preset value of the imaging system.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and Hanwell by wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel based on a setting value of an image capturing apparatus that has captured the image as disclosed by Omi. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to accurately determine the pixel of its presence/absence using the preset value of the device thereby enhancing the pixel evaluation.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140072214 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 20250173829 A1 to Hanwell and in further view of US Pub. No. 20150373275 A1 to Kitada.
As to claim 5, Tanaka and Hanwell do not expressly disclose wherein the image acquired by the determination unit includes black floating.
Kitada discloses wherein the image acquired by the determination unit includes black floating (Kitada ¶0075, black float).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and Hanwell by wherein the determination unit determines the presence/absence of the target pixel based on a setting value of an image capturing apparatus that has captured the image as disclosed by Kitada. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to receive images having image anomaly’s allowing the device to adjust the image thereby increasing the image quality.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140072214 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 20250173829 A1 to Hanwell and in further view of US Pub. No. 20050147293 A1 to Lee.
As to claim 6, Tanaka and Hanwell do not expressly disclose wherein the image acquired by the determination unit is captured in a low-illuminance environment.
Lee discloses wherein the image acquired by the determination unit is captured in a low-illuminance environment (Lee ¶0028, 0030, image captured and inputted in the low-illuminance environment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and Hanwell by wherein the image acquired by the determination unit is captured in a low-illuminance environment as disclosed by Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide images captured in low-illuminance environment allowing enhanced processing of the captured image.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140072214 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 20250173829 A1 to Hanwell and in further view of US Pub. No. 20210321963 A1 to Manor.
As to claim 15, Tanaka and Hanwell do not expressly disclose wherein the reduction unit uses a neural network that has performed learning using learning data based on an image added with noise which reproduces the positive peak signal.
Manor discloses wherein the reduction unit uses a neural network that has performed learning using learning data based on an image added with noise which reproduces the positive peak signal (Manor ¶0047, 0087, training neural network with images with added noise/blur and with high Peak SNR).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and Hanwell by wherein the reduction unit uses a neural network that has performed learning using learning data based on an image added with noise which reproduces the positive peak signal as disclosed by Manor. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to provide machine learning with the neural network that allows noise to be added and trained improving the image quality.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Pub. No. 20140072214 A1 to Tanaka in view of US Pub. No. 20250173829 A1 to Hanwell and in further view of US Pub. No. 20110063637 A1 to Kondo.
As to claim 17, Tanaka and Hanwell do not expressly disclose wherein, in a case when, a signal of a pixel spatially located around a pixel of interest as a determination target pixel is at a predetermined black level, the determination unit determines the pixel of interest as the target pixel.
Kondo discloses wherein, in a case when, a signal of a pixel spatially located around a pixel of interest as a determination target pixel is at a predetermined black level, the determination unit determines the pixel of interest as the target pixel (Kondo ¶0053, if the difference between the estimated black values for the target pixel and peripheral pixel is greater than or equal to the threshold, the CPU 11 determines that the target pixel is a candidate).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tanaka and Hanwell by wherein, in a case when, a signal of a pixel spatially located around a pixel of interest as a determination target pixel is at a predetermined black level, the determination unit determines the pixel of interest as the target pixel as disclosed by Kondo. The suggestion/motivation would have been in order to determine a candidate pixel using black levels enhancing feature detection in the images).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7-14, 16 and 18 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.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 15, 17, 19 and 20 have been rejected.
Claims 4, 7-14, 16 and 18 are objected.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYU CHAE whose telephone number is (571)270-5696. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am -4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NASSER MOAZZAMI can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/KYU CHAE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426