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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 08/03/2026.
Claims 1-9 are pending.
Corrective Actions by Applicant
Claims 1-6 have been amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed on 07/09/2026 and 07/24/2026 have both been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s presented arguments.
On page 5 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amendment of claim 5 overcomes the objection to claim 5. This is persuasive. The objection to claim 5 has been withdrawn.
On pages 6-10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are all directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. This is persuasive, particularly based on the amended step h (“adjusting, at the one more computing devices, the at least one pixel tone value of the digital image to the target pixel tone value by adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram”) not being directed to mathematical calculations per se, and thus integrating into a practical application, as well as the claim now reciting “forming a digital image by” applying the tone conversation, the generation of which does include judicial exceptions, which now also integrates into a practical application. All 101 rejections have thus been withdrawn.
On pages 10-12 of the remarks, Applicant argues that neither Rezaee or Roux disclose obtaining artificial object histograms and image histograms, as well as adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram. This is persuasive, based specifically on “adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram.”
The examiner argues that Rezaee still discloses obtaining the two separate histograms (see Rezaee figure 6, step 610 and paragraph 0064, where the image histogram is calculated and analyzed; see paragraphs 0041 and 0064, where the seed pixel value represents a threshold delineating clusters/subsets of the image histogram representing artificial object contributions, which serves as an artificial object histogram). Roux also discloses obtaining the two histograms (see figure 10 and paragraphs 0040-0043, where the image histogram H1 contains a sub-histogram ranging from Pref1 to Pref2, which would function as an artificial object histogram in combination with Rezaee).
However, the examiner agrees that Rezaee fails to disclose adjusting the artificial object histogram specifically relative to the image histogram. Likewise, although Roux does disclose doing so (see figure 10 and paragraphs 0040-0043, where the window with of the sub-histogram is stretched to match that of the image histogram), the examiner agrees that there is no motivation to do so, as Roux’s particular stretching of the sub-histogram increases the contrast and brightness of the artificial object region, contrary to the inventive concept of the present Application.
Thus, all previous 102 and 103 rejections have been withdrawn.
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, 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaee et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2013/0070983-A1) in view of Yasuda (U.S. Publ. US-2006/0274180-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rezaee discloses (with annotation added):
A method of altering pixel tone values in a digital image (see figure 6 and paragraphs 0063-0066), the method comprising:
receiving, at one or more computing devices, a digital image, the digital image having a plurality of pixels (see paragraphs 0035 and 0063, where an input image can be a medical image, such as a mammogram image);
identifying, at the one or more computing devices, a measured brightness value of each of the plurality of pixels (see figure 6, step 600 and paragraph 0063, where the image is first segmented into a plurality of regions; then see figure 6, step 610 and paragraph 0064, where a histogram of the image is calculated and then analyzed; both of these actions require identifying and analyzing the intensity values of each pixel of the image);
determining, at the one or more computing devices, a location of the plurality of pixels corresponding to an artificial object in the digital image based on the measured brightness value of each of the plurality of pixels (first see figure 6, step 620 and paragraphs 0039, 0041, and 0064, where, via the histogram analysis, a seed pixel value representing non-tissue/artificial objects is identified; then see figure 6, step 630 and paragraphs 0042 and 0065, where segmented regions of the image having an average pixel value close to the seed value are identified; finally, see figure 6, step 640 and paragraphs 0050 and 0065, where the final mask is determined by merging and/or growing the above identified segmented regions);
calculating, at the one or more computing devices, a tone conversion configured to suppress a tone of the artificial object in the digital image, wherein the tone conversion comprises: measuring, at the one or more computing devices, at least one pixel tone value of the digital image, the at least one pixel tone value including an artificial object histogram and an image histogram (see above citations to figure 6, step 610 and paragraph 0064, where the histogram of the image is calculated and then analyzed; see above citations to figure 6, step 620 and paragraph 0064, where, via the histogram analysis, a seed pixel value representing non-tissue/artificial objects is identified; the examiner interprets this as an artificial object histogram, especially in view of paragraph 0041, which specifies that the seed pixel values can be thresholds delineating clusters/subsets of the entire image histogram representing artificial object contributions);
analyzing, at the one or more computing devices, the at least one pixel tone value of the digital image to calculate a target pixel tone value based on the location of the plurality of pixels corresponding to the artificial object in the digital image (see figure 6, step 650 and paragraphs 0051-0056 and 0066, where a new mask pixel value is calculated, which is likewise regarded by the examiner as a target image histogram);
and adjusting, at the one more computing devices, the at least one pixel tone value of the digital image to the target pixel tone value by adjusting the artificial object histogram (the examiner regards changing the seed pixel value to the new mask pixel value as a histogram adjustment, as both values are based on the clusters/subsets of the entire image histogram; however, this adjustment is only based on the desired luminance level, not relative to the entire image histogram)
and forming a new digital image by applying, at the one or more computing devices, the tone conversion to each of the pixels at the location of the plurality of pixels corresponding to the artificial object in the digital image (see figure 6, step 660-670 and paragraph 0066, where the pixel values within the mask are set to the calculated mask pixel value, and then the new digital image is masked and displayed with the changed pixel values).
Rezaee fails to disclose adjusting, at the one more computing devices, the at least one pixel tone value of the digital image to the target pixel tone value by adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram (emphasis added via underline).
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Yasuda discloses adjusting, at the one more computing devices, the at least one pixel tone value of the digital image to the target pixel tone value by adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram (see figure 4 and paragraph 0050, where a "histogram mountain", which is interpreted to be functionally the same as an artificial object histogram, especially in view of figure 7A of the present application, is shifted to the left such that its peak/window center is shifted substantially towards the overall image center, and is thus shifted relative to the image histogram; paragraph 0012 of the present specification states that such shifting can include substantially matching the window centers; figures 2A-B and paragraphs 0033, 0038-0040 specify that the histogram mountains correspond to specific objects/regions of the image).
Rezaee and Yasuda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms for brightness correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Yasuda into Rezaee by shifting the artificial object window center to the image window center because doing so optimizes the exposure/brightness of high-brightness subjects (see Yasuda paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 2, Rezaee fails to disclose the limitations of claim 2.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Yasuda discloses wherein adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram comprises shifting an object histogram center of the artificial object histogram to a window center of the image histogram (see all Yasuda citations used for claim 1 above).
Rezaee and Yasuda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms for brightness correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Yasuda into Rezaee by shifting the artificial object window center to the image window center because doing so optimizes the exposure/brightness of high-brightness subjects (see Yasuda paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 3, Rezaee fails to disclose the limitations of claim 3.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Yasuda discloses wherein calculating the pixel tone value is based at least in part on a suppression ratio (see paragraphs 0051-0053, where an exposure compensation value / suppression ratio "B" determines the degree of correction).
Rezaee and Yasuda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms for brightness correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Yasuda into Rezaee by using a suppression ratio because doing so controls what type of brightness compensation to perform (see Yasuda paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 4, Rezaee in view of Yasuda discloses wherein the artificial object histogram has a first window width and the image histogram has a second window width, the first window width having a first window center and the second window width having a second window center (the examiner argues that both of Rezaee's histograms naturally have window widths and centers, as all histograms have a range/width from the lowest to highest value, and also all have a median value/window center).
Regarding claim 5, Rezaee fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Yasuda discloses wherein calculating the target pixel tone value comprises at least one of adjusting the first window width to be substantially the same as the second window width and adjusting the first window center to be substantially the same as the second window center (the Yasuda citations for claim 1 above read on the second option of adjusting the first window center to be substantially the same as the second window center).
Rezaee and Yasuda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms for brightness correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Yasuda into Rezaee by shifting the artificial object window center to the image window center because doing so optimizes the exposure/brightness of high-brightness subjects (see Yasuda paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 6, Rezaee discloses a system comprising: one or more processors; and a memory coupled to the processors comprising instructions executable by the processors, the processors being operable when executing the instructions to (see figure 1, processor 110, memory 112 and paragraphs 0020-0024):
receive a digital image, the digital image having a plurality of pixels (see step b of claim 1 above);
identify a measured brightness value of each of the plurality of pixels (see step c of claim 1 above);
determine a location of the plurality of pixels corresponding to an artificial object in the digital image based on the measured brightness value of each of the plurality of pixels (see step d of claim 1 above);
calculate a tone conversion configured to suppress a tone of the artificial object in the digital image, wherein the tone conversion comprises instructions to: measure an image histogram of the digital image; analyze the image histogram to determine an artificial object image histogram based on the location of the plurality of pixels corresponding to the artificial object in the digital image (see step e of claim 1 above);
and adjust the artificial object image histogram to form a target image histogram by adjusting the artificial object histogram (see figure 6, step 650 and paragraphs 0051-0056 and 0066, where a new mask pixel value is calculated, which is likewise regarded by the examiner as a target image histogram; the examiner regards changing the seed pixel value to the new mask pixel value as a histogram adjustment, as both values are based on the clusters/subsets of the entire image histogram; however, this adjustment is only based on the desired luminance level, not relative to the entire image histogram)
form a new digital image by applying the tone conversion to the location of the plurality of pixels corresponding to the artificial object in the digital image. (see step h of claim 1 above).
Rezaee fails to disclose adjust the artificial object image histogram to form a target image histogram by adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram (emphasis added via underline).
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Yasuda discloses adjust the artificial object image histogram to form a target image histogram by adjusting the artificial object histogram relative to the image histogram (see same citations to claim 1 above).
Rezaee and Yasuda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms for brightness correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Yasuda into Rezaee by shifting the artificial object window center to the image window center because doing so optimizes the exposure/brightness of high-brightness subjects (see Yasuda paragraph 0050).
Regarding claim 7, Rezaee in view of Yasuda discloses wherein the tone conversion further comprises measuring a first window width of the artificial object histogram and measuring a second window width of the image histogram (paragraph 0041 specifies that the determination of the seed pixel values defining the artificial object histogram can include clustering the entire image histogram; this process involves measuring the width of both of these histograms),
wherein the first window width having a first window center and the second window width having a second window center (see citations for claim 4 above).
Regarding claim 8, Rezaee fails to disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Yasuda discloses adjusting the first window center to be substantially the same as the second window center (see all Yasuda citations used for claim 1 above).
Rezaee and Yasuda are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms for brightness correction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Yasuda into Rezaee by shifting the artificial object window center to the image window center because doing so optimizes the exposure/brightness of high-brightness subjects (see Yasuda paragraph 0050).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaee et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2013/0070983-A1) in view of Yasuda (U.S. Publ. US-2006/0274180-A1), and further in view of Roux et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2012/0328186-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Rezaee in view of Yasuda fails to disclose the limitations of claim 9.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Roux discloses adjusting the first window width to be substantially the same as the second window width (see figure 10 and paragraphs 0040-0043, where, in an entire image histogram H1, a sub-histogram is identified ranging from Pref1 to Pref2; the pixels of the sub-histogram are then stretched to substantially match the window width of the sub-histogram to the width of the entire image histogram; the examiner argues that in combination with Yasuda above, who would first shift the sub-histogram to the center, this would result in a darker object region simply having more detail/contrast).
Rezaee and Roux are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to modifying image histograms. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Roux into Rezaee and Yasuda by stretching the shifted artificial object histogram to the width of the image histogram because stretching histograms can improve image contrast and overall visual perception (see Roux paragraph 0006).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights