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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-19 of this application are broader and encompass claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2.
Regarding claim 1 of this application, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 1. It is noted that claim 1 of this application is broader and encompasses claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2.
Regarding claims 2-15 of this application, claims 2-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claims 2-15, respectively.
Regarding claim 16 of this application, claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2 recites all the claimed limitations of claim 16. It is noted that claim 16 of this application is broader and encompasses claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2.
Regarding claims 17-19 of this application, claims 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,375,622 B2 recite all the claimed limitations of claims 17-19, respectively.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-7 and 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesnokov (US Patent No. 10,491,924 B2) in view of Nago et al. (US Patent No. 6,567,117 B1).
In considering claim 1, Chesnokov discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed an image receiver configured to receive an image signal from an external settop box or a network is met by the image data 102 (Fig. 1, col. 3, line 38 to col. 4, line 62), 2) the claimed a display is met by the display device 184 (Fig. 5, col. 13, lines 5-21), 3) the claimed a processor configured to: receive the image signal from the image receiver is met by the encoding 104 (Fig. 1, col. 4, line 63 to col. 5, line 13), 4) the claimed acquire a source quality of the image signal, wherein the acquired source quality of the image signal includes a noise level and a compression level of the received image signal is met by the decoding 108 which detects the compression-noise component which maybe magnitude, amount or level of compression-noise…(Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38), 5) the claimed change an intensity of the image signal, based on the compression level included in the acquired source quality of the image signal is met by the pixel intensity values can be adjusted smoothed, to reduce compression-noise in the image represented by the decoded image data (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38), and 6) the claimed cause the display to display an image corresponding to the changed intensity of the image signal is met by the display device 184 (Fig. 5, col. 13, lines 5-21).
However, Chesnokov explicitly does not disclose the claimed cause the display to display: an information indicating an image quality set based on the acquired source quality of the received image signal.
Nago et al. teach that an active sign D21 allows an indication of which one of the image format and the picture quality is to be changed, by using the selection button D22 to cause the active sign D21 to be activated for the indication "image format" and by depressing either change button D23, a change in the image format is enabled (Fig. 2, col. 1, lines 44-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the set-up screen as taught by Nago et al. into Chesnokov’s system in order to notify the user quality of the image so the user can make an adjustment.
In considering claim 2, the claimed wherein the intensity of the image signal includes an enhancement intensity of the image signal or a noise reduction intensity is met by the pixel intensity values can be adjusted smoothed, to reduce compression-noise in the image represented by the decoded image data (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 3, the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: change, during image playback, the image quality from a first image quality setting to a second image quality setting, in response to the source quality of the received image signal being changed at a first time point is met by the quality factor may be selected by a user depending on a desired visual impression for the image or the quality factor may depend on user-independent characteristics such as the content of the image or setting associated with the image, for example provided by the content creator (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 4, the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: change, while the image signal is received from the settop box, the image quality from a first image quality setting to a second image quality setting in response to the source quality of the received image signal being changed at a first time point by a channel change or an input change is met by the quality factor which may be received as an input to the one or more compression-noise reduction filters, the quality factor may be selected by a user depending on a desired visual impression for the image or the quality factor may depend on user-independent characteristics such as the content of the image or setting associated with the image, for example provided by the content creator (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 5, the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: extract a first region and a second region from the image signal; acquire the noise level of the image signal based on the first region; and acquire the noise level of the image signal based on the second region is met by the light region which may be compressed to the first pixel intensity and color value and the dark region which may be compressed to the second pixel intensity and color value in the image (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 6, the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: extract a region, having most edge components in the image signal, as the first region; and extract a region having fewest edge components in the image signal, as the second region is met by there may be noise, such as pixels with an incorrect (for example noticeably darker or lighter) intensity, around features of the image such as edges or regions corresponding to a transition from a light to a dark image region (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 7, the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to increase a noise reduction intensity of the image signal as the acquired noise level increases is met by the pixel intensity values can be adjusted smoothed, to reduce compression-noise in the image represented by the decoded image data (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 10, the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: acquire the compression level based on training data obtained by reducing a compression bit rate is met by the image data 102 which reduces the bit precision (col. 3, line 54 to col. 4, line 60 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 11, the claimed the processor is further configured to: decrease an enhancement intensity of the image signal as the acquired compression level increases is met by the image data 102 which reduces the bit precision… and the intensity range of pixels corresponding with detail to preserve in the image in dark and/or light areas may therefore may be increased and the intensity range of other areas of the image may be decreased (col. 3, line 54 to col. 5, line 67 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 12, the claimed the processor is further configured to: decrease an enhancement intensity of the image signal as the noise level of the image signal decreases is met by there may be noise, such as pixels with an incorrect (for example noticeably darker or lighter) intensity, around features of the image such as edges or regions corresponding to a transition from a light to a dark image region (Fig. 1, col. 5, line 1 to col. 7, line 38 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 13, the claimed the processor is further configured to: increase a blurring intensity of the image signal as the acquired compression level increases is met by the image data 102 which reduces the bit precision… and the intensity range of pixels corresponding with detail to preserve in the image in dark and/or light areas may therefore may be increased and the intensity range of other areas of the image may be decreased (col. 3, line 54 to col. 5, line 67 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 14, the claimed the processor is further configured to: decrease a size of a filter for filtering the image signal as the noise level of the image signal increases is met by the kernel filter such as the sliding window filter 124 may be with different size (Fig. 2, col. 7, line 54 to col. 8, line 17 of Chesnokov).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
In considering claim 15, Chesnokov discloses all the claimed subject matter, note 1) the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: downscale the image signal based on the noise level of the image signal is met by the scaling which converts from HDR data to SDR data (Fig. 1, col. 9, lines 5-67), 2) the claimed perform image quality processing on the downscaled image signal is met by the encoding 150 (Fig. 1, col. 9, lines 5-67), 3) the claimed upscale the image signal on which the image quality processing is performed is met by the de-scaling 170 which converts from SDR data to HDR data (Fig. 5, col. 11, lines 4-62), and 4) the claimed outputs the upscaled image signal is met by the output image data 174 (Fig. 5, col. 11, lines 4-62).
The motivation to combine the references has been discussed in claim 1 above.
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 1 above.
6. Claims 8-9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chesnokov (US Patent No. 10,491,924 B2) in view of Nago et al. (US Patent No. 6,567,117 B1) and further in view of Wang et al. (US Patent No. 10,692,185 B2).
In considering claim 8, the combination of Chesnokov and Nago et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the noise level and a noise level of the received image signal using a Deep Neural Network (DNN). Wang et al. teach that in some implementations, the visual data is produced by the algorithm being configured to be used for any of removing compression artefacts, dynamic range enhancement, image generation and synthesis, image inpainting, image de-mosaicing, or denoising (col. 4, lines 49-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the algorithm (DNN) as taught by Wang et al. into the combination of Chesnokov and Nago et al.’s system in order to accurately detect the noise level.
In considering claim 9, the combination of Chesnokov and Nago et al. disclose all the limitations of the instant invention as discussed in claim 1 above, except for providing the claimed wherein the processor is further configured to: update a parameter for a Deep Neural Network (DNN) received from a server; and acquire the noise level and the compression level of the received image signal based on the updated parameter.
Wang et al. teach that in some implementations, the comparison algorithm 160 produces updated parameters 165 which can be used to replace the parameters 115 of the algorithm 110. Using the updated parameters 165, the method 100 may iterate, seeking to reduce the differences between the plurality of characteristics determined from the high-quality visual data 130 and the estimated enhanced quality visual data 140, each time using the updated parameters 165 produced by the comparison algorithm 160 (Fig. 1, col. 10, lines 1-58).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the algorithm (DNN) as taught by Wang et al. into the combination of Chesnokov and Nago et al.’s system in order to accurately detect the noise level.
Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 8 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 17-18 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
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JEON et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0091128 A1) disclose display apparatus to enhance image quality through repeated processing and image processing method thereof.
Urabe et al. (US Patent No. 11,062,642 B2) disclose display apparatus for comparing and displaying image signals in a plurality of image qualities and control method thereof.
Kawashima (US Patent No. 7,889,248 B2) discloses imaging apparatus and method of processing image.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRANG U TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7358. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00AM- 6:00PM.
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, JOHN W. MILLER can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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.
September 21, 2026
/TRANG U TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights