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 .
Response to Amendment
This is in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on June 17th, 2026 which has been entered and made of record.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC§ 102/103
Applicant’s arguments regarding the current claim(s) have been fully considered. But, the arguments/remarks are directed to the claims as amended, and so are believed to be answered by and therefore moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 11-12, 15-22, 26-27, and 30 are pending. Claim(s) 1 and 16 were amended. No claims were canceled. No new claim(s) were added. Claims 1-7, 11-12, 15-22, 26-27, and 30 are considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Lee (US 12452540 B1).
Regarding Claim 1, representative of Claim 16, Lee teaches a method of processing one or more images, comprising:
obtaining, at an imaging device, a first image of an environment from an image sensor of the imaging device ([abstract]: interface may be configured to receive pixel data…arranged as video frames);
extracting features from the first image ([abstract]: perform computer vision operations on the video frames to detect objects in the video frames. Examiner interpreting features to be objects);
determining depths of the features extracted from the first image ([abstract]: analyze characteristics of the objects detected, determine adaptive auto-exposure weightings in response to the characteristics of the objects detected, [0019]: extract characteristics about objects detected in the video frames (e.g., object size, object position, object distance, object location, etc.));
determining a region of interest of the first image based on comparing respective depths of the features to identify one or more features having differing depths than one or more other features extracted from the first image ([0183]: table generation module 264 may select the distance weight values for each of the groups of distance weight values 354a-354c in response to the respective distance measurement of the objects 320a-320c from the lens, [0159]: table generation module 264 may comprise predefined distance weights for each range of distances. In one example, all of the distance weight values 294aa-294mn may comprise a default value of 1 and may be increased when an object of interest is detected in the corresponding one of the tiles of the video frames 252a-252n. In one example, the distance weight value may be a value of 1 for every object that has a distance measurement greater than nine meters away from the lens 160, and a distance weight value of D for each object that is closer than nine meters away from the lens 160, where D is calculated as 10 minus the distance measured in meters, [0184]: the neural network model 260 may be configured to consider closer objects to the lens 160 as the highest priority object. Examiner interpreting a region of interest to be a highly weighted region/high priority object. Examiner notes an indirect comparison of the distances of objects based on a comparison to a predetermined range to identify close vs far objects and weight them accordingly);
determining a representative luma value associated with the first image based on image data in the region of interest of the first image ([0147]: AE module 258 may be configured to combine the luma values and the AE weight values to determine the AE adjustment (e.g., the brightness level) to apply to each subregion);
determining one or more exposure control parameters based on the representative luma value ([0147]: The AE module 258 may be configured to combine the luma values and the AE weight values to determine the AE adjustment (e.g., the brightness level) to apply to each subregion of the preprocessed video frame. The AE module 258 may be configured to perform the AE adjustment to generate the AE adjusted video frames, [002]: control within a camera is done with auto exposure (AE) systems); and
obtaining, at the imaging device, a second image captured based on the one or more exposure control parameters ([00147]: The AE module 258 may be configured to perform the AE adjustment to generate the AE adjusted video frames).
Regarding Claim 4, representative of Claim 19, Lee teaches the method of claim 1. In addition, Lee teaches wherein determining the representative luma value based on the image data in the region of interest comprises: determining the representative luma value associated with the first image based only on the image data in the region of interest ([0173]: background objects may be detected for other computer vision purposes (e.g., training data, labeling, depth detection, etc.), but may not be used for the purposes of the AE adjustment technique performed by the apparatus 100, [0174]: The CNN module 190b may associate each of the detected objects 320a-320n with the tiles 300aa-300nn that the objects occupy, [0019]: AE calculations to be performed in order to dynamically adopt different weightings according to the importance of the objects in order to display each object with a suitable brightness, [0023]: the brightness level for AE may be calculated dynamically for each block of pixels according to a determined importance of the objects detected).
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.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5-6, 17-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 12452540 B1) in view of Zhou (20200162655 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, representative of Claim 17, Lee teaches the method of claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 2.
Zhou teaches wherein the one or more exposure control parameters include at least one of an exposure duration or a gain setting ([0072]: In some embodiments, the exposure parameter may include at least one of an exposure time, an exposure gain, or an aperture value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Zhou by substituting a general auto exposure adjustment as taught by Lee for the explicit adjustment of exposure duration or a gain setting as taught by Zhou. Doing so would provide the predictable result of exposure adjustment for improved image quality of subsequent images.
Regarding Claim 3, representative of Claim 18, Lee teaches the method of claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 3. Zhou teaches wherein determining the one or more exposure control parameters based on the representative luma value comprises:
determining at least one of an exposure duration or a gain setting for the second image based on the representative luma value ([0043]: at step 304, a first exposure parameter may be determined based on the brightness of the image of the target object, [0072]: In some embodiments, the exposure parameter may include at least one of an exposure time, an exposure gain, or an aperture value).
Regarding Claim 5, representative of Claim 20, Lee teaches the method of claim 1. Although Lee teaches calculating a representative luma value according to the image data of a region of interest, Lee does not explicitly teach calculating an average luma value.
Zhou teaches wherein the representative luma value is an average luma of the image data in the region of interest ([0051]: Specifically, after the image of the target object is determined, the average brightness of the target object may be determined, and the first exposure parameter may be determined, according to the average brightness).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified the teachings of Lee to include the teachings of Zhou by substituting the representative luma value of Lee by an average luma value taught by Zhou. Doing so would provide the predictable result of a luma value to use in exposure control.
Regarding Claim 6, representative of Claim 21, Lee teaches the method of claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 6.
Zhou teaches wherein determining the representative luma value based on the image data in the region of interest comprises:
determining the representative luma value associated with the first image based on scaling an average luma of the image data in the region of interest ([0051]: Specifically, after the image of the target object is determined, the average brightness of the target object may be determined, and the first exposure parameter may be determined, according to the average brightness, [0052]: a difference value between the average brightness and preset brightness may be determined. The first exposure parameter may be determined according to the difference value when the difference value is greater than or equal to a preset brightness threshold value).
Claim(s) 15 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 12452540 B1) in view of Horesh (US 11145076 B1).
Regarding Claim 15, representative of Claim 30, Lee teaches the method of claim 1. However, Lee does not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of Claim 15.
Horesh teaches further comprising: tracking, at the imaging device, a position of the imaging device in the environment based on a location of the features in the second image ([0054]: the exposure parameter adjustment can result in an acquired image with better image information in the high weight regions compared to low weighted regions and overall better information for the specific application (e.g., SLAM)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to have modified Lee to include the teachings of Horesh by including a further step of tracking. Doing so would improve tracking accuracy using a secondary image by improving the exposure of the image used.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 11-12, 22, and 26-27 remain 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE VAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
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, Matthew Bella can be reached at (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 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.
/JANICE E. VAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2667 /MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667
Prosecution Insights