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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/19/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, with the exception of all listed NPL references (references 25-29) because copies of these references have not been provided. Additionally, copies of the listed foreign references (references 14-22, 24) have not been provided so these references are similarly not being considered by the examiner. A copy of the listed foreign reference EP3518178A1 (reference 23) has been provided and accordingly, is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The following title is suggested: IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS FOR MIXING DENOISED IMAGE ACCORDING TO WEIGHT DATA
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) 1-2, 7-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 20200241098 A1) in view of Brooks (S. Brooks, "Mixed Media Painting and Portraiture," in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1041-1054, Sept.-Oct. 2007, doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.1025.).
Regarding claim 1, Shinoda discloses an image processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing at least one instruction; and a processor (Fig. 2, [0031] a console device performing MRI data reconstruction including a processing circuit and a memory; [0035] the processing circuit executing a program stored in the memory) configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain, from a first image, a second image from which noise has been removed using a first filtering algorithm (Fig. 9, [0079] generate a denoise image from an original image; [0116] the denoising may be performed by 3D collaborative filtering),
determine first weight data corresponding to the first image and second weight data corresponding to the second image (Fig. 9, [0079] the mixed image generation function multiplies each element by a mixing rate a (alpha) as a weighting factor when element values are added (See expression (3) wherein the original image is multiplied by a/alpha and the denoised image is multiplied by (1-a), i.e. first weight data and second weight data respectively)),
obtain an output image by mixing a first result obtained by applying the first weight data to the first image with a second result obtained by applying the second weight data to the second image (Fig. 9, [0079] the mixed image generation function generates a mixed image by mixing an original image input to the denoise model and a noise image output from the denoise model on the bases of a blend rate map (see also expression 3)).
Shinoda fails to disclose to change at least one of the first weight data and the second weight data, according to an input from a user.
Brooks, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of image processing including filtering to combine versions of image regions based on user input (Abstract), discloses to change at least one of the first weight data and the second weight data, according to an input from a user ([pg. 1046, section 3.5 Color Control] the user is offered a slider that controls the relative weighting of color between F and I (filtered image and initial image respectively, see [pg. 1044, Method Overview]) (see also equation 5)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brooks with Shinoda and change at least one of the first weight data and second weight data according to an input from a user, as disclosed by Brooks, as part of an image processing apparatus generating a mixed output image from which noise has been removed, as disclosed by Shinoda, for the purpose of providing simple user controls in order to generate a detailed output image via seamless combination of image subsets (See Brooks: pg. 1042 left column).
Regarding claim 2, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Shinoda further discloses wherein the first filtering algorithm is based on a non-neural network ([0116] the denoising may be performed by 3D collaborative filtering).
Regarding claim 7, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Shinoda further discloses to change another weight data according to a degree of change in the one weight data, and obtain the output image by mixing a result obtained by applying the one weight data to the first image or the second image, with a result obtained by applying the another weight data to the first image or the second image (Fig. 9, [0079] the mixed image generation function multiplies each element by a mixing rate a (alpha) as a weighting factor when element values are added (See expression (3) wherein the original image is multiplied by a/alpha and the denoised image is multiplied by (1-a), i.e. first weight data and second weight data respectively); [0079] the mixed image generation function generates a mixed image by mixing an original image input to the denoise model and a noise image output from the denoise model on the bases of a blend rate map (see also expression 3)).
Shinoda fails to disclose to change one weight data among the first weight data and the second weight data, according to the input from the user.
Brooks, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of image processing including filtering to combine versions of image regions based on user input (Abstract), discloses to change at least one of the first weight data and the second weight data, according to an input from a user ([pg. 1046, section 3.5 Color Control] the user is offered a slider that controls the relative weighting of color between F and I (filtered image and initial image respectively, see [pg. 1044, Method Overview]) (see also equation 5)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brooks with Shinoda and change one weight data among the first and second weight data according to input from the user, as disclosed by Brooks, as part of an image processing apparatus generating a mixed output image from which noise has been removed, as disclosed by Shinoda, for the purpose of providing simple user controls in order to generate a detailed output image via seamless combination of image subsets (See Brooks: pg. 1042 left column).
Regarding claim 8, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Shinoda further discloses to decrease the another weight data when the one weight data is increased according to the input from the user, and increase the another weight data when the one weight data is decreased (Fig. 9, [0079] See expression (3) wherein the original image is multiplied by a/alpha and the denoised image is multiplied by (1-a), i.e. due to the subtraction, an increase in a (first weight) will lead to a decrease in 1-a (second weight)).
Regarding claim 9, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Shinoda further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to change the another weight data as the one weight data is changed, so that a sum of the one weight data and the another weight data is equal to a pre-determined value (Fig. 9, [0079] See expression (3) wherein the original image is multiplied by a/alpha and the denoised image is multiplied by (1-a), i.e. the sum of a and 1-a is 1, which is a pre-determined value).
Regarding claim 10, Shinoda in view of Brooks further discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 7 as applied above. Shinoda fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify a region selected by the user from the first image or the output image, and change the one weight data corresponding to the identified region.
Brooks, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of image processing including filtering to combine versions of image regions based on user input (Abstract), discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to: identify a region selected by the user from the first image or the output image, and change the one weight data corresponding to the identified region ([pg. 1046, section 3.6 Blending Control] a user is given a slider to control the extent of region blending (see also Fig. 10) (i.e. the user controls the weight of smoothing of a region in the image based on a desired region)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brooks with Shinoda and identify a region selected by the user from the first image or the output image, and change the one weight data corresponding to the identified region, as disclosed by Brooks, as part of an image processing apparatus generating a mixed output image from which noise has been removed, as disclosed by Shinoda, for the purpose of providing simple user controls in order to generate a detailed output image via seamless combination of image subsets (See Brooks: pg. 1042 left column).
Regarding claim 11, Shinoda in view of Brooks further discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 10 as applied above. Shinoda fails to disclose wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to identify a region selected by the user, through object recognition with respect to the first image or the output image.
Brooks, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of image processing including filtering to combine versions of image regions based on user input (Abstract), discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to identify a region selected by the user, through object recognition with respect to the first image or the output image ([pg. 1045, left column] the image is decomposed into 3 regions using segmentation around the objects (see also Fig. 5); [pg. 1046, section 3.6 Blending Control] the mask indicating the user-selected region is based on this segmentation and the user selection (see also Fig. 10)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Brooks with Shinoda and identify a region selected by the user through object recognition, as disclosed by Brooks, as part of an image processing apparatus generating a mixed output image from which noise has been removed, as disclosed by Shinoda, for the purpose of providing simple user controls in order to generate a detailed output image via seamless combination of image subsets (See Brooks: pg. 1042 left column).
Regarding claim 12, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Shinoda further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to obtain the output image through a summation between the first result obtained through multiplication between the first image and the first weight data, and the second result obtained through multiplication between the second image and the second weight data (Fig. 9, [0079] See expression (3) wherein the original image is multiplied by the weight a/alpha and the denoised image is multiplied by the weight (1-a) and the two products are summed together to produce the mixed image).
Regarding claim 13, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), and Shinoda further discloses a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon a computer program, which is executed by a computer ([0037] memory may include a non-transitory storage medium; Fig. 2, [0031] a console device including a processing circuit and a memory to perform magnetic resonance data; [0035] the computer executes a program stored in the memory).
Claim(s) 3-6, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinoda (US 20200241098 A1) in view of Brooks (S. Brooks, "Mixed Media Painting and Portraiture," in IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 1041-1054, Sept.-Oct. 2007, doi: 10.1109/TVCG.2007.1025.) in further view of Takeda (US 20190266709 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Shinoda further discloses to determine the second weight data, based on a difference between a pre-determined value and the first weight data ([0079] the mixed image generation function multiplies each element by a mixing rate a (alpha) as a weighting factor when element values are added (See expression (3) wherein the original image is multiplied by a/alpha and the denoised image is multiplied by (1-a), i.e. first weight data and second weight data respectively)).
Shinoda fails to disclose to obtain the first weight data using the first image.
Takeda, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of performing synthesis on images and acquired smoothed images to reduce noise (Abstract, [0001]), discloses obtaining the first weight data using the first image ([0048]-[0049] the absolute values of differences between the pixel value of the pixel of the image to be processed and the pixel values of the pixels of the smoothed images are acquired…smaller absolute value is more heavily weighted (i.e. the first weight is based on pixel values of the first image)).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takeda with Shinoda in view of Brooks and obtain first weight data using the first image, as disclosed by Takeda, as part of an image processing apparatus for obtaining a denoised image by mixing a first image and a denoised second image, as disclosed by Shinoda in view of Brooks, for the purpose of performing appropriate image smoothing and synthesis (See Takeda: [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 4, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 1 as applied above. Shinoda fails to disclose obtain, from the first image, a third image from which noise has been removed using a second filtering algorithm, determine third weight data corresponding to the third image, and obtain the output image by mixing the first result, the second result, and a third result obtained by applying the third weight data to the third image.
Takeda, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of performing synthesis on images and acquired smoothed images to reduce noise (Abstract, [0001]), discloses to obtain, from the first image, a third image from which noise has been removed using a second filtering algorithm ([0043] smoothing processing the D smoothing filters F(d) is performed on all the pixels of the image to be processed and the pixel values of D smoothed images Smooth(d) are obtained for each pixel (see Fig. 2, in which at least 3 smoothed images are obtained, see also Fig. 3 in which there are 8 filters)),
determine third weight data corresponding to the third image ([0062] the synthesis weight acquirer for acquiring synthesis weights used for weighting to combine the pixel values of the respective pixels of the plurality of smoothed images Smooth(d) (see also [0066], Fig. 7-8)), and
obtain the output image by mixing the first result, the second result, and a third result obtained by applying the third weight data to the third image (Fig. 7, [0090] in step s5 weighted synthesis of the smoothed images Smooth(d) is performed with the synthesis weights; [0092] in step S7 weighted addition of the image to be processed and the synthetic image comp is performed).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takeda with Shinoda in view of Brooks and obtain a third image, determine third weight data, and obtain the output image by mixing the first, second, and third results, as disclosed by Takeda, as part of an image processing apparatus for obtaining a denoised image by mixing a first image and a denoised second image, as disclosed by Shinoda in view of Brooks, for the purpose of performing appropriate image smoothing and synthesis (See Takeda: [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 5, Shinoda in view of Brooks and Takeda discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 4 as applied above. Shinoda fails to disclose wherein a type of the first filtering algorithm used to obtain the second image is different from a type of the second filtering algorithm used to obtain the third image.
Takeda, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of performing synthesis on images and acquired smoothed images to reduce noise (Abstract, [0001]), discloses wherein a type of the first filtering algorithm used to obtain the second image is different from a type of the second filtering algorithm used to obtain the third image (Fig. 3, [0044] the smooth filters F(d) are expressed as matrices of operators having values as shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takeda with Shinoda in view of Brooks wherein the first filtering algorithm is different from a second filtering algorithm, as disclosed by Takeda, as part of an image processing apparatus for obtaining a denoised image by mixing a first image and a denoised second image, as disclosed by Shinoda in view of Brooks, for the purpose of performing appropriate image smoothing and synthesis (See Takeda: [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 6, Shinoda in view of Brooks and Takeda discloses the image processing apparatus of claim 5 as applied above. Shinoda fails to disclose wherein a filtering strength of the first filtering algorithm used to obtain the second training image is smaller than a filtering strength of a second filtering algorithm used to obtain the third training image.
Takeda, in a related system from the same field of endeavor of performing synthesis on images and acquired smoothed images to reduce noise (Abstract, [0001]), discloses wherein a filtering strength of the first filtering algorithm used to obtain the second training image is smaller than a filtering strength of a second filtering algorithm used to obtain the third training image ([0047] the sizes of the smoothing filters F(d) can be increased to larger matrices and the coefficients distributed differently (e.g. larger coefficient to a pixel closer to the pixel of interest) (i.e. one of the filters may impact the pixel of interest more strongly than another filter).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Takeda with Shinoda in view of Brooks wherein a filtering strength of a first filtering algorithm is stronger, as disclosed by Takeda, as part of an image processing apparatus for obtaining a denoised image by mixing a first image and a denoised second image, as disclosed by Shinoda in view of Brooks, for the purpose of performing appropriate image smoothing and synthesis (See Takeda: [0005]-[0007]).
Regarding claim 14, Shinoda in view of Brooks discloses the image processing method of claim 13 as applied above. Shinoda in view of Brooks and Takeda discloses everything claimed as applied (see rejection of claim 4).
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 5-6, 10-16, 18-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12530747. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are merely broader versions of the patented claims.
Claim 1 of the present application corresponds to claim 1 of the patent:
Claim 1 of the present application:
Claim 1 of the reference patent:
An image processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
An image processing apparatus comprising: a memory storing at least one instruction; and a processor configured to execute the at least one instruction to:
obtain, from a first image, a second image from which noise has been removed using a first filtering algorithm,
obtain, from a first image, a second image from which noise has been removed using a first filtering algorithm,
determine first weight data corresponding to the first image and second weight data corresponding to the second image,
determine first weight data corresponding to the first image and second weight data corresponding to the second image by applying the first image to a neural network for deriving a mixing ratio between the first image and the second image,
change at least one of the first weight data and the second weight data, according to an input from a user, and
change a sample value included in at least one of the first weight data and the second weight data, according to an input from a user, and
obtain an output image by mixing a first result obtained by applying the first weight data to the first image with a second result obtained by applying the second weight data to the second image.
obtain an output image by mixing a first result obtained by applying the first weight data to the first image with a second result obtained by applying the second weight data to the second image.
Claim 2 of the present application corresponds to claim 2 of the reference patent.
Claim 4 of the present application corresponds to claim 5 of the reference patent.
Claim 5 of the present application corresponds to claim 6 of the reference patent.
Claim 7 of the present application corresponds to claim 10 of the reference patent.
Claim 8 of the present application corresponds to claim 11 of the reference patent.
Claim 9 of the present application corresponds to claim 12 of the reference patent.
Claim 10 of the present application corresponds to claim 13 of the reference patent.
Claim 11 of the present application corresponds to claim 14 of the reference patent.
Claim 12 of the present application corresponds to claim 15 of the reference patent.
Claim 13 of the present application corresponds to claim 16 of the reference patent.
Claim 14 of the present application corresponds to claim 18 of the reference patent.
Claim 15 of the present application corresponds to claim 19 of the reference patent.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chan (US 20190236763 A1) discloses blending of reconstructed medical images wherein the weights are determined based on user inputs relating to image features and wherein the blending image is generated by mixing images having different degrees of smoothing.
Bhatt (US 20140205207 A1) discloses detecting user input to adjust parameters of a digital image and generating a blended image through interpolation of two previously generated versions of the digital image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROLINE DEPALMA whose telephone number is (571)270-0769. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00am-4pm Eastern Time.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/CAROLINE E. DEPALMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights