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
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “ wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: identify one or less object, down-adjust R, G, and B values of a region of the identified object to a preset ratio when there is at least one of a difference greater than or equal to a preset first value between an average value of pixels of the identified object and an average value of pixels of a background region or a deterioration rate greater than or equal to a preset second value, and apply the style of the brightness adjustment that sets R, G, and B values of the background region to a lowest value.” When interpreted as less then one object, it is unclear as to whether an adjustment is made to the R, G, and B values as no objects are identified.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,6,7,12,15,18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PERI et al (US 2021/0065338) in view of SANO et al (US 2010/0182346).
Regarding claim 1, PERI discloses an electronic device (abstract) comprising: memory, including one or more storage media, storing instructions (paragraph 47); a display (paragraph 18); and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory and the display (paragraph 38), wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, cause the at least one processor to: identify an object from an image, identify a priority of the identified object, identify a main object based on the identified priority and remove a lower- priority object according to a preset criterion, adjust a pixel value of the image based on a preset color (paragraph 35), identify a style based on at least one of the identified object or a state of a pixel element of the display, and control the display to display an image to which the identified style is applied. identify an object from an image, identify a priority of the identified object, identify a main object based on the identified priority and remove a lower- priority object according to a preset criterion, adjust a pixel value of the image based on a preset color, identify a style based on at least one of the identified object or a state of a pixel element of the display, and control the display to display an image to which the identified style is applied (paragraph 35-37, 40-43, 59-61; The electronic device 102 may designate the pixels corresponding to the undesirable dynamic image objects 502A, 502B, 502C, and 502D (e.g., persons) to be removed from the working image frame 500. On the other hand, the electronic device 102 may designate the pixels corresponding to the desirable dynamic image objects 504A (e.g., water waves), 504B (e.g., water fountain), 504C (e.g., birds), and 504D (e.g., birds) and the pixels corresponding to the desirable static image objects 506A and 506B (e.g., buildings, trees) to be subject to pixel-locking and preserved in the working image frame 500). However, PERI does not disclose adjust a pixel value of the image based on a maximum value of a preset color. In a similar field of endeavor, SANO discloses adjust a pixel value of the image based on a maximum value of a preset color (paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify PERI to include the teachings of SANO, since SANO states that such a modification would enable control of pixel light intensity based on a maximum determined displayable value. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide image correction based on techniques disclosed by SANO.
Regarding claim 6, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of PERI and SANO further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: adjust a highest value among R, G, and B values of the pixel of the image to a maximum value of the preset color, and adjust remaining R, G, and B values of the pixel of the image based on a ratio of the highest value among the R, G, and B values and the maximum value of the color (SANO – Figure 3, 4; paragraph 38, 60, 68; RGB values scaled and maintain proportion based on maximum RGB values).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of PERI and SANO further discloses wherein the style includes at least one of color offset, brightness adjustment, rendering, or flat illustration (PERI - paragraph 17, 18, 30; color offset, rendering, flat illustration; SANO – paragraph 23-25, 32; 38; color offset, rendering, brightness adjustment).
Regarding claim 12, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of PERI and SANO further discloses wherein, when the identified object is included in a preset region of the image, the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to apply the style of the rendering to down-adjust R, G, and B values of the region other than the preset region (SANO – Figure 3, 4; paragraph 38, 60, 68).
Regarding claim 15, PERI discloses a method for setting an image of an electronic device (abstract), the method comprising: identifying an object from the image; identifying a priority of the identified object (paragraph 40-43, 59-61); identifying a main object based on the identified priority and removing a lower- priority object according to a preset criterion (paragraph 35-37, 40-43, 59-61); adjusting a pixel value of the image based on a preset color (paragraph 35-37); and identifying a style based on at least one of the identified object or a state of a pixel element of a display and displaying an image to which the identified style is applied (paragraph 35-37, 40-43, 59-61; The electronic device 102 may designate the pixels corresponding to the undesirable dynamic image objects 502A, 502B, 502C, and 502D (e.g., persons) to be removed from the working image frame 500. On the other hand, the electronic device 102 may designate the pixels corresponding to the desirable dynamic image objects 504A (e.g., water waves), 504B (e.g., water fountain), 504C (e.g., birds), and 504D (e.g., birds) and the pixels corresponding to the desirable static image objects 506A and 506B (e.g., buildings, trees) to be subject to pixel-locking and preserved in the working image frame 500). However, PERI does not disclose adjust a pixel value of the image based on a maximum value of a preset color. In a similar field of endeavor, SANO discloses adjust a pixel value of the image based on a maximum value of a preset color (paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify PERI to include the teachings of SANO, since SANO states that such a modification would enable control of pixel light intensity based on a maximum determined displayable value. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide image correction based on techniques disclosed by SANO.
Regarding claim 18, PERI discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media storing one or more computer programs including computer-executable instructions that (abstract), when executed by one or more processors of an electronic device individually or collectively, cause the electronic device to perform operations, the operations comprising: identifying an object from the image; identifying a priority of the identified object (paragraph 40-43, 59-61); identifying a main object based on the identified priority and removing a lower- priority object according to a preset criterion (paragraph 35-37, 40-43, 59-61); adjusting a pixel value of the image based on a preset color (paragraph 35-37); and identifying a style based on at least one of the identified object or a state of a pixel element of a display and displaying an image to which the identified style is applied (paragraph 35-37, 40-43, 59-61; The electronic device 102 may designate the pixels corresponding to the undesirable dynamic image objects 502A, 502B, 502C, and 502D (e.g., persons) to be removed from the working image frame 500. On the other hand, the electronic device 102 may designate the pixels corresponding to the desirable dynamic image objects 504A (e.g., water waves), 504B (e.g., water fountain), 504C (e.g., birds), and 504D (e.g., birds) and the pixels corresponding to the desirable static image objects 506A and 506B (e.g., buildings, trees) to be subject to pixel-locking and preserved in the working image frame 500). However, PERI does not disclose adjust a pixel value of the image based on a maximum value of a preset color. In a similar field of endeavor, SANO discloses adjust a pixel value of the image based on a maximum value of a preset color (paragraph 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify PERI to include the teachings of SANO, since SANO states that such a modification would enable control of pixel light intensity based on a maximum determined displayable value. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide image correction based on techniques disclosed by SANO.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 16, 17, 19, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PERI et al (US 2021/0065338) in view of SANO et al (US 2010/0182346) and further in view of PARK et al (US 12,380,569).
Regarding claim 2, 16, 19, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, the combination of PERI and SANO does not expressly disclose further discloses when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: assign a weight value to the object based on at least one of an area of the object or a distance of the object from a center point of the image, and identify the priority based on the assigned weight value. In a similar field of endeavor, PARK discloses when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to: assign a weight value to the object based on at least one of an area of the object or a distance of the object from a center point of the image, and identify the priority based on the assigned weight value (col. 3, line 25-39; col. 6, line 1-9; col. 7, line 29-24; assign weight interpreted as determination of object and removal based on area and bounding box). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of PERI and SANO to include the teachings of PARK, since PARK states that such a modification would allow object determination and removal within an image using image analyses and modeling. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional object filtering means based on those disclosed by PARK.
Regarding claim 3, 17, 20, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, the combination of PERI and SANO does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to exclude, from the identified object, an object whose area ratio is less than a preset ratio. In a similar field of endeavor, PARK discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to exclude, from the identified object, an object whose area ratio is less than a preset ratio (col. 6, line 1-9; col. 7, line 29-24; assign weight interpreted as determination of object and removal based on area and bounding box). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of PERI and SANO to include the teachings of PARK, since PARK states that such a modification would allow object determination and removal within an image using image analyses and modeling. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional object filtering means based on those disclosed by PARK.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PERI et al (US 2021/0065338) in view of SANO et al (US 2010/0182346) and further in view of ZENG et al (US 2017/0185254).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, the combination of PERI and SANO does not expressly disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to crop a surrounding region of the image so as to correspond to a size of the display based on the identified main object. In a similar field of endeavor, ZENG discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to crop a surrounding region of the image so as to correspond to a size of the display based on the identified main object (paragraph 164, 165). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of PERI and SANO to include the teachings of ZENG, since ZENG states that such a modification would allow a user to resize an image based on there preference.
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. The combination of PERI, SANO, and ZENG further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to additionally remove an object cropped by a preset ratio or more due to the cropping of the surrounding region of the image (ZENG – paragraph 164-165; cropping of an image inherently removes objects outside of the specified area).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PERI et al (US 2021/0065338) in view of SANO et al (US 2010/0182346) and further in view of KASAI et al (US 2009/0244043)
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. However, the combination of PERI and SANO does not expressly disclose wherein the state of the pixel element of the display includes a state in deterioration of R, G, and B elements of the pixel of the display, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to identify deterioration rates of the R, G, and B elements of the pixel of the display. In a similar field of endeavor, KASAI discloses wherein the state of the pixel element of the display includes a state in deterioration of R, G, and B elements of the pixel of the display, and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually or collectively, further cause the electronic device to identify deterioration rates of the R, G, and B elements of the pixel of the display (paragraph 99, 100, 120). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of PERI and SANO to include the teachings of KASAI, since KASAI states that such a modification would allow a display to correct pixel characteristics based on RGB detection circuitry. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide pixel compensation based on techniques disclosed by KASAI.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9,10,13,14 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.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624
Prosecution Insights