DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
Claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The terms “larger range”, “more frequently” and “geometrically closer” in claims 3 and 4 and “substantially” in claim 16 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, it is unclear what range would be assigned, what the frequency of assignment is being compared to, and what kind of range would correspond to geometrically closer. Further it is unclear what the dividing line between substantial and non-substantial correspondence would be.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (U.S. Publication 2021/0033471).
As to claim 1, Nakamura discloses a method for displaying a thermal image (figs. 2-5), the method comprising:
assigning one color of a color palette in each case to a temperature range of the thermal image (fig. 12; p. 5, sections 0070-0077; for each interval range of temperature in a thermal image, a color is assigned from a 256-color palette) depending on whether certain criteria of a temperature distribution occur in a geometric region of the thermal image (p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 5, sections 0079-0082; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; colors within the palette are assigned based on whether they are inside a user-set range of color distribution in a window region set by a user).
As to claim 2, Nakamura discloses a method further comprising assigning more colors of the color palette to the temperature range which occurs within a region of interest in the thermal image than would be the case with uniform color distribution (fig. 13; fig. 14; p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 5, sections 0079-0082; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; after a region is chosen, temperatures within a range of the region center are given individual colors; by adjusting the width variable, the temperature range within the region can be assigned a large amount of colors, such as in fig. 14, that would not occur with a more uniform distribution, such as in fig. 13).
As to claim 3, as best understood, Nakamura discloses a method further comprising assigning a larger range of the color palette to the temperature range more frequently and geometrically closer to where a region of interest of thermal image temperature values within the temperature range occur (fig. 13; fig. 14; p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 5, sections 0079-0082; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; after a region is chosen, temperatures within a range of the region center are given individual colors; by adjusting the width variable, the temperature range within the region and close to the region can be assigned a large number/frequency of colors, such as in fig. 14, that would not occur with a more uniform distribution, such as in fig. 13).
As to claim 5, Nakamura discloses a method further comprising assigning the temperature ranges having specific gradients within a region of interest a larger range of the color palette (fig. 13; fig. 14; p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 5, sections 0079-0082; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; after a region is chosen, temperatures within a range of the region center are given individual colors; by adjusting the width variable, the specific gradients within the region can be assigned a large number/frequency of colors, such as in fig. 14, that would not occur with a more uniform distribution, such as in fig. 13).
As to claim 6, Nakamura discloses a method further comprising marking at least one region of interest in the thermal image (p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; a user marks a region of interest by pointing or touching a region’s center pixel), defining an imaging function, according to which the colors are assigned to a temperature range, and amplifying contrasts in the at least one region of interest and reducing contrasts outside of the at least one region of interest (fig. 13; fig. 14; p. 4, section 0068-p. 5, section 0082; an imaging function assigns particular colors to particular temperatures; by adjusting the width variable, the temperature range within the region can be assigned a large number/frequency of colors, resulting in high contrast while the outside colors are darker and less contrasted, such as in fig. 14, as compared to a more uniform contrast distribution, such as in fig. 13).
As to claim 11, Nakamura discloses wherein the region of interest is marked by selecting a pixel or image detail (p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; a user marks a region of interest by pointing or touching a region’s center pixel).
As to claim 12, Nakamura discloses wherein the region of interest comprises multiple pixels of the thermal image (p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; the region of interest is defined by a window of pixels around the selected pixel).
As to claim 13, Nakamura discloses wherein the region of interest is marked in an automated manner in an image center of the thermal image or at a point having a highest or lowest temperature (p. 4, sections 0055-0061; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; when a user does not choose a pixel point, the image center associated with a window of the thermal image is chosen automatically).
As to claim 14, Nakamura discloses wherein a size of the region of interest is defined, settable, and/or changeable (p. 4, sections 0059-0063; the size can be changed from 7x7 to 9x13 and vice versa).
As to claim 15, Nakamura discloses wherein the region of interest (2) is defined by a circle, a rectangle, a square, or another geometry (p. 4, sections 0055-0065; p. 6, sections 0090-0093; the region of interest is defined by a rectangular or square window around the selected pixel).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Chahine (U.S. Publication 2020/0029059).
As to claim 4, as best understood, Nakamura does not disclose, but Chahine discloses wherein a number of the colors is assigned to the temperature range depending on how much more frequently and how much geometrically closer to the region of interest of the thermal image temperature values occur within the temperature range (fig. 3; p. 8, section 0061; p. 9, sections 0071-p. 10, section 0077; a number of colors assigned to a temperature range is based on how frequently the temperature values occur as well as how close they are to objects/regions of interest such as humans or animals). The motivation for this is to make objects more vividly stand out for search and rescue or hunting operations. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura to have a number of the colors assigned to the temperature range depend on how much more frequently and how much geometrically closer to the region of interest of the thermal image temperature values occur within the temperature range in order to make objects more vividly stand out for search and rescue or hunting operations as taught by Chahine.
As to claim 7, Nakamura does not disclose, but Chahine discloses dividing the imaging function into a first section and further sections, wherein the first section is given by temperature limits of the at least one region of interest, and the further sections image the temperatures outside the at least one region of interest, and selecting the imaging function in the first section so that contrasts are increased, and selecting the imaging function in the further sections so that contrasts are reduced (fig. 3; p. 8, section 0061; p. 9, sections 0071-p. 10, section 0077; a color imaging function is divided into multiple sections depending on what is represented in the image; human and animal regions are considered objects/regions of interest and are represented with greater contrast while other sections are represented with reduced contrast). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 8, Nakamura does not disclose, but Chahine discloses wherein the imaging function assigns more colors to the first section than the further sections to increase the contrast (p. 9, sections 0071-p. 10, section 0077; 50% or greater of the color range is allocated to one target section of interest; for example, 128-256 can be used as the color gradations for this section which is slightly greater than half of the total gradations). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 4.
As to claim 9, Nakamura does not disclose, but Chahine discloses selecting the imaging function according to a histogram equalization (fig. 3; p. 8, section 0061), wherein the temperature values within the first section are weighted more strongly than the temperature values which only occur in the further sections (fig. 3; p. 8, section 0061; p. 9, sections 0071-p. 10, section 0077; human and animal regions are considered objects/regions of interest and these portions of the temperature value range are stretched/weighted more strongly to create a larger number of gradations). Motivation for the combination is given in the rejection to claim 4.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Chahine and further in view of Hogasten (U.S. Publication 2019/0251681).
As to claim 10, Nakamura does not disclose, but Hogasten discloses in creating the histogram, multiplying a temperature value which occurs within the region of interest by a weighting factor, so that the temperature value is taken into consideration disproportionately in the histogram (figs. 6-7; p. 8, section 0082-p. 9, section 0083; a weighting factor is multiplied by temperature values to map to color values such that the temperature values in the center of the image, which reads on a region of interest, are taken into consideration disproportionately when assigning numbers of color values). The motivation for this is to more closely reconstruct values to original values in this region. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura and Chahine to multiply a temperature value which occurs within the region of interest by a weighting factor, so that the temperature value is taken into consideration disproportionately in the histogram in order to more closely reconstruct values to original values in this region as taught by Hogasten.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Urklinksi (U.S. Publication 2022/0335596).
As to claim 16, as best understood, Nakamura does not disclose, but Urklinksi discloses a method further comprising providing an image in a visible spectral range, image detail of which substantially corresponds to the image detail of the thermal image, marking the region of interest in the visible image, and transferring the region of interest to the thermal image (p. 7, sections 0059-0062; a problem area/region of interest is highlighted/marked in a visible image and the area/region is then shown in/transferred to a corresponding thermal image). The motivation for this is to call a user’s attention to hidden defects. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura to provide an image in a visible spectral range, image detail of which substantially corresponds to the image detail of the thermal image, mark the region of interest in the visible image, and transfer the region of interest to the thermal image in order to call a user’s attention to hidden defects as taught by Urklinksi
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Urklinksi and further in view of Lure (U.S. Publication 2023/0230241).
As to claim 17, Nakamura does not disclose, but Lure discloses marking multiple ones of the regions of interest, and viewing the multiple ones of the regions of interest as a contiguous region of interest (p. 6, section 0120; p. 7, section 0148; multiple regions of interest are marked and merged into a single contiguous region of interest if certain conditions are met). The motivation for this is to avoid large overlaps between ROIs. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nakamura and Urklinksi to mark multiple ones of the regions of interest, and view the multiple ones of the regions of interest as a contiguous region of interest in order to avoid large overlaps between ROIs as taught by Lure
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON M RICHER whose telephone number is (571)272-7790. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/AARON M RICHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2617
Prosecution Insights