DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Response to Amendment
The response, filed June 3, 2026, has been entered and made of record. Claims 17 and 31-37 are pending in the application.
III. Response to Arguments
A. Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 17 and 31 and Lee et al. have been considered but they are either moot or not persuasive. Applicant starts with the position that Lee’s use of look-up tables, curve fitting, or other numerical mapping methods that map the control signal representing the spectral content sensed by Lee’s color detector to drive signals cannot be construed as processing of data. The examiner disagrees, but in the interest of more closely mapping the rejection to the claims, the examiner will stipulate to Applicant’s position. That is, claims 17 and 31 now require communication of a light-compensation value from the color correction processing circuit to the light-emitting control unit. To address this new limitation, the examiner will combine Lee et al. and Rivard et al. in a different way than in the previous Office actions, stipulating to Applicant’s above position. Accordingly, the argument that Lee’s use of look-up tables, curve fitting, or other mapping methods that convert the control signal representing the spectral content sensed by Lee’s color detector cannot be construed as processing of data is moot.
Advancing a related argument, Applicant alleges that Lee et al. cannot perform “accurate” deviation compensation of the light-emitting parameter of its LEDs because it merely uses preset tables to map the control signal to driver signals. What constitutes and does not constitute “accurate” deviation compensation is not recited in the claims and is not discussed in the disclosure. Applicant offers Lee’s failure to adjust the light emitting effect based on exact deviation values as support of inaccurate compensation. Applicant has already trodden dangerously close to failing to enable the claims with its meager disclosure of its algorithm approach to compensating for deviation in lighting parameters using the collected light-emitting information, and with this argument, it treads even closer. Similar to Applicant’s position regarding Lee’s control signal and numerical mapping, Applicant cannot provide such little detail regarding its compensation and how it achieves an accurate result and, at the same time, allege that Lee’s approach is different. The structure of Applicant’s color correction device strongly suggests that both light emitted from the flash and ambient light is collected when compensation is performed, like Lee et al. How, if at all, Applicant distinguishes the emitted light from the ambient light to achieve a more accurate compensation is not addressed by the specification.
B. Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 17 and 31 and Rivard et al. have been considered but they are largely moot. The examiner does not map the claimed color correction processing circuit to the flash controller “160” of Rivard et al. However, Applicant argues that Rivard et al. fails to disclose that “the color correction result information generated by the color correction processing circuit is a light-emitting compensation value, the light-emitting compensation value is sent to the light-emitting control circuit, so as to adjust corresponding relationship between light-emitting parameters and driving current through the light-emitting control circuit," as further required by amended claim 17. The examiner disagrees with this statement. As will be explained in more detail in the following prior art rejections, Rivard et al. discloses a color controller that computes a color control signal used by a driver to affect a change in the color profile of emitted light.
IV. Examiner Suggestion
On lines 21 and 22, claim 17 recites “…the color correction result information generated by the color correction processing circuit....” Until that limitation, the claim does not establish that the color correction result information is generated by the color correction processing circuit, and the limitation presents the possibility of a reading that lacks antecedent basis. Therefore, the examiner suggests the following amendment on lines 21 and 23: “…wherein the color correctionprocessing circuit generates the color correction result information, wherein the color correction result information is a light-emitting compensation value….”
V. 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.
A. Claims 17,31,33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0134723 A1) in view of Rivard et al. (US 2012/0154627 A1)
As to claim 17, Lee et al. teaches a color correction system (system of Fig. 1), comprising an external flash (Fig. 1, light module “14” and driver “16”) and a color correction detection device (Fig. 1, imaging system “10” and color detector “20”);
wherein the external flash comprises:
a light source assembly (Fig. 1, light module “14”; [0009], lines 4 and 5, “…series of emitters of light…”) comprising one or more LED light sources ([0013], lines 1-3);
a driver circuit (Fig. 1, current sources of driver “16”; [0015], lines 19-21) configured to drive the light source assembly to emit light ([0015], lines 1-5); and
a control circuit (Fig. 1, control circuit “26”) electrically connected to the driver circuit (Fig. 1), and the control circuit being configured to be electrically connected to the color correction detection device (Fig. 1), wherein the color correction detection device is configured to detect light-emitting information of the light source assembly ([0023], lines 1-8);
wherein the control circuit is configured to perform color correction according to the light-emitting information ([0022], lines 1-3; {Although Lee’s control signal “17” ultimately dictates the adjustment to the drive signals, it is nonetheless based on the sensed spectral content. That is, drive signal adjustment accords with the sensed spectral content.}), so as to generate color correction result information ([0023], lines 13-17; {The adjusted drive signals can be read as the color correction result information.}) and directly correct the light-emitting of one or more LED light sources (e.g., [0022]) in real-time ([0024], lines 1-5, “…feedback loop…”); and the driver circuit is configured to drive the light source assembly to emit light according to the color correction result information ([0023], lines 13-17);
wherein the control circuit further comprises a light-emitting control circuit (Fig. 1, control circuit “26”; {The examiner reads the claimed control circuit and claimed light-emitting control circuit as the same.}) electrically connected to the driver circuit (Fig. 1), so as to control the driver circuit to operate ([0015], lines 1-5), so as to adjust corresponding relationship between light-emitting parameters and driving current through the light-emitting control circuit ([0023], lines 8-12);
wherein the color correction detection device comprises:
a light-emitting information collection circuit (Fig. 1, color detector “20”) configured to collect light-emitting information of the light source assembly of the external flash ([0023], lines 5-8); and
a communication circuit configured to communicate with the external flash, wherein the communication circuit is electrically connected to the light-emitting information collection circuit, so as to send a control signal to the external flash ([0022], lines 6-11, “…communicates the sensed spectral content…”; {The examiner submits that communication circuitry that transmits the sensed spectral content to light module “14” the communication of the sensed spectral content is inherent in Lee’s imaging system. Note the dashed line from color detector “20.”});
wherein the light-emitting information comprises one or more pieces of information on at least one of brightness, chroma ([0021], lines 6-11, “…sensed spectral content…”), or saturation, wherein the light-emitting information is light-emitting data ([0023], lines 5-8, “…color detector 20 to sense the spectral content of the combination of the ambient light LA and flash light LF provided by light module 14…”).
In the embodiments discussed in paras. [0021]-[0023] of Lee et al., sensed spectral content is sent to the driver “16,” which includes control circuit “26,” in the form of a control signal. That is, the sensed spectral content per se is not sent to the driver “16.” Additionally, Lee et al. only discloses what can be construed as a light-emitting control circuit as the control circuit, not both a color correction processing circuit that processes the light-emitting information to produce the color correction result information and a light-emitting control circuit as parts of the control circuit. In terms of claim limitations, Lee et al. fails to disclose that the control circuit (1) is configured to receive light-emitting information of the light source assembly (2) via a communication circuit in the color correction detection device and (3) includes a color correction processing circuit that (4) is electrically connected to the color correction detection device and that (5) generates the color correction result information from the light-emitting information (6) in the form of a light-emitting compensation value (7) that is sent to the light-emitting control circuit.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Rivard et al. discloses a flash unit (Fig. 1, flash unit “100”) including a color controller (3) (Fig. 1, color controller “110”) that receives a measured spectral signal ([0052], lines 1 and 2), communicated from a connected color sensor (1), (2), (4) (Fig. 1, color sensor “136”; [0051], lines 1-3), and processes the spectral signal to produce a color control signal ([0052], lines 3 and 4), a driver (Fig. 1, filter driver “114”) that receives the color control signal and produces a signal to change the spectral profile of a emitted light from the flash (6), (7) ([0052], lines 4-9), and a flash controller (Fig. 1, flash controller “160”) that controls driving of the flash according to flash trigger and extinguish commands ([0049], first and last three lines). The color controller produces the color control signal from the measured spectral signal through computation (5) ([0052], lines 9-11). In light of the teaching of Rivard et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to, instead of producing Lee’s control signal at the color detector and sending the color signal to the control circuit, design the color detector to send the sensed spectral content to a color controller (like that of Rivard et al.) in the driver/light module that computes the control signal from the communicated sensed spectral content and that sends the control signal to the control circuit (“26”), which produces the LED drive signals from the control signal. Additionally, the examiner submits that it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a flash controller (similar to that of Rivard et al.) in Lee’s light module that enables and disables the drive signals for the LEDs in accordance with trigger and extinguish commands.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that assigning the production of the control signal to a color controller in the driver/light module would lessen the computation resources for color detector and would enhance the light module’s compatibility with other color detectors that might not have the capability of producing a compatible control signal for the light module. Also, with the additional flash controller, orderly initiation and ending of the light emission from the LEDs is performed, ensuring that they emit light commensurate with the capture of spectral content.
As to claim 31, Lee et al. teaches an external flash (Fig. 1, light module “14” and driver “16”) automatically correcting color thereof ([0023], lines 8-12) comprising:
a light source assembly (Fig. 1, light module “14”; [0009], lines 4 and 5, “…series of emitters of light…”) comprising one or more LED light sources ([0013], lines 1-3);
a driver circuit (Fig. 1, current sources of driver “16”; [0015], lines 19-21) configured to drive the light source assembly to emit light ([0015], lines 1-5); and
a control circuit (Fig. 1, control circuit “26”) electrically connected to the driver circuit (Fig. 1), and the control circuit being configured to be electrically connected to the color correction detection device (Fig. 1), wherein the color correction detection device is configured to detect light-emitting information of the light source assembly ([0023], lines 1-8);
wherein the control circuit is configured to perform color correction according to the light-emitting information ([0022], lines 1-3), so as to generate color correction result information ([0023], lines 13-17; {The adjusted drive signals can be read as the color correction result information.}) and directly correct the light-emitting of one or more LED light sources (e.g., [0022]) in real-time ([0024], lines 1-5, “…feedback loop…”); and the driver circuit is configured to drive the light source assembly to emit light according to the color correction result information ([0023], lines 13-17); wherein the light-emitting information comprises one or more pieces of information on at least one of brightness, chroma ([0021], lines 6-11, “…sensed spectral content…”), or saturation, wherein the light-emitting information is light-emitting data ([0023], lines 5-8, “…color detector 20 to sense the spectral content of the combination of the ambient light LA and flash light LF provided by light module 14…”);
wherein the control circuit further comprises a light-emitting control circuit (Fig. 1, control circuit “26”; {The examiner reads the claimed control circuit and claimed light-emitting control circuit as the same.}) electrically connected to the driver circuit (Fig. 1), so as to control the driver circuit to operate ([0015], lines 1-5), so as to adjust corresponding relationship between light-emitting parameters and driving current through the light-emitting control circuit ([0023], lines 8-12).
In the embodiments discussed in paras. [0021]-[0023] of Lee et al., sensed spectral content is sent to the driver “16,” which includes control circuit “26,” in the form of a control signal. That is, the sensed spectral content per se is not sent to the driver “16.” Additionally, Lee et al. only discloses what can be construed as a light-emitting control circuit as the control circuit, not both a color correction processing circuit that processes the light-emitting information to produce the color correction result information and a light-emitting control circuit as parts of the control circuit. In terms of claim limitations, Lee et al. fails to disclose that the control circuit (1) is configured to receive light-emitting information of the light source assembly (2) via a communication circuit in the color correction detection device and (3) includes a color correction processing circuit that (4) is electrically connected to the color correction detection device and that (5) generates the color correction result information from the light-emitting information (6) in the form of a light-emitting compensation value (7) that is sent to the light-emitting control circuit.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Rivard et al. discloses a flash unit (Fig. 1, flash unit “100”) including a color controller (3) (Fig. 1, color controller “110”) that receives a measured spectral signal ([0052], lines 1 and 2), communicated from a connected color sensor (1), (2), (4) (Fig. 1, color sensor “136”; [0051], lines 1-3), and processes the spectral signal to produce a color control signal ([0052], lines 3 and 4), a driver (Fig. 1, filter driver “114”) that receives the color control signal and produces a signal to change the spectral profile of a emitted light from the flash (6), (7) ([0052], lines 4-9), and a flash controller (Fig. 1, flash controller “160”) that controls driving of the flash according to flash trigger and extinguish commands ([0049], first and last three lines). The color controller produces the color control signal from the measured spectral signal through computation (5) ([0052], lines 9-11). In light of the teaching of Rivard et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to, instead of producing Lee’s control signal at the color detector and sending the color signal to the control circuit, design the color detector to send the sensed spectral content to a color controller (like that of Rivard et al.) in the driver/light module that computes the control signal from the communicated sensed spectral content and that sends the control signal to the control circuit (“26”), which produces the LED drive signals from the control signal. Additionally, the examiner submits that it also would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a flash controller (similar to that of Rivard et al.) in Lee’s light module that enables and disables the drive signals for the LEDs in accordance with trigger and extinguish commands.
One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that assigning the production of the control signal to a color controller in the driver/light module would lessen the computation resources for color detector and would enhance the light module’s compatibility with other color detectors that might not have the capability of producing a compatible control signal for the light module. Also, with the additional flash controller, orderly initiation and ending of the light emission from the LEDs is performed, ensuring that they emit light commensurate with the capture of spectral content.
As to claim 33, Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., teaches the external flash according to claim 31, wherein the control circuit further comprises a timing control circuit (see Rivard et al., Fig 1, flash controller “160”), and the timing control circuit is electrically connected to the driver circuit, so as to enable a driver power supply (see Lee et al., e.g., Fig. 1, current sources of driver “16”; see Rivard et al., Fig. 1) to drive the light source assembly to emit light at a preset timing (see Rivard et al., [0049], first and last three lines); and
wherein the timing control circuit is further electrically connected to the color correction detection device, so that when the light source assembly emits light at the preset timing, the timing control circuit controls the color correction detection device to detect the light-emitting information of the light source assembly at a preset timing accordingly (see Lee et al., Fig. 6B, steps “52” and “54”; {The examiner submits that control that allows light to be emitted by module “14” while color detector “20” detects the spectral content is inherent in Lee et al.}).
As to claim 34, Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., teaches the external flash according to claim 31, wherein the control circuit comprises a timing reception circuit terminal, and the timing reception terminal is configured to receive a timing control signal (see Lee et al., Fig. 1; see Rivard et al., Fig. 1; {By the examiner’s combination of Lee et al. and Rivard et al., the control circuit inherently includes some terminal that receives the flash trigger and extinguish commands imported from Rivard et al.}); and
wherein the control circuit controls, according to the timing control signal, the driver circuit to operate, so as to control the light source assembly to emit light at a preset timing (see Rivard et al., [0049], first and last three lines).
B. Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0134723 A1) in view of Rivard et al. (US 2012/0154627 A1) and further in view of Gu et al. (US 2020/0375005 A1)
As to claim 32, Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., teaches the external flash according to claim 31. The claim differs from Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., in that it requires that the light-emitting control circuit comprises a programming circuit electrically connected to the color correction processing circuit, that the programming circuit receives the color correction result information, so as to adjust a light-emitting control program in the light-emitting control circuit, and that the driver circuit drives the light source assembly to emit light according to the adjusted light-emitting control program.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Gu et al. discloses a
flash system comprising a spectral analyzer (Fig. 6, color temperature sensor "604"), a processor
(Fig. 6, processor "602") connected a color temperature controller (Fig. 6, controller "603"; {In Fig. 1, note the connection between processor “602” (i.e., control circuit “26” of Lee et al.) and controller “603”).}), and an LED array (Fig. 6, light supplement module "605"; [0044], lines 4-7). The spectral analyzer detects the spectral content of surrounding illumination, communicates the spectral content to a processor that calculates a color temperature value of the spectral content, communicates the value to a color temperature controller that determines a pulse width modulation scheme ([0089], TABLE 1; {The examiner reads the programming terminal as the terminal of controller “603” that outputs the RGB-PWM of TABLE 1.}) for the LED array based on the color temperature value ([0095] and [0096]). In light of the teaching of Gu et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to assign the spectral content determination function to the control circuit of Lee et al. and assign driver control based on the spectral content to a separate controller circuit, like Gu's controller "603" because an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would find this modification to be a simple substitution of function assignment that would yield predictable results. That is, Lee's order of operation remains the same only with an added circuit, re-assigned and specified functions, and without deviating from Lee's stated goal of providing scene-specific spectral illumination.
C. Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0134723 A1) in view of in view of Rivard et al. (US 2012/0154627 A1) and further in view of Minakuti et al. (US 2003/0076424 A1)
As to claim 36, Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., teaches the external according to claim 31. The claim differs from Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., in that it requires that the device further comprises a wireless communication circuit that is electrically connected to the control circuit, that is configured to communicate wirelessly with the color correction detection device, so as to receive, through wireless transmission, light-emitting information detected by the color correction detection device, and that transmits the light-emitting information to the control circuit.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Minakuti et al. teaches an imaging system (Fig. 1, image processing system “100”) including a camera (Fig. 5, camera “1”) and a colorimeter (Fig. 7, colorimeter “2”). The camera and colorimeter are wirelessly connected ([0045]) for transmission of color information detected by the coloriometer to the camera ([0091], lines 7-9), and the camera includes a wireless interface (Fig. 5, radio I/F “157”) connected to a processor (Fig. 5, CPU “161”/WB circuit “147”) that receives the color information for correction of a captured image ([0109] and [0110]). Although Minakuti et al. uses the received color information from the colorimeter for image processing, the reference’s disclosure of wireless communication of color information from a colorimeter would implore one of ordinary skill in the art to look to implement a wireless communication protocol between the color detector and light module of Lee et al. as wireless communication provides numerous advantages over wired communication, like dispensing with the need for a wire and flexibility in positioning between transmitting and receiving devices.
D. Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0134723 A1) in view of Rivard et al. (US 2012/0154627 A1) et al. (US 2015/0338307 A1) and further in view in view of Rees (US # 10,694,091 B2)
As to claim 36, Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al., teaches the external flash according to claim 31, wherein the external flash further comprises a communication interface, and the communication interface is electrically connected to the control circuit, and the communication interface is configured to electrically connected to the color correction detection device, so as to receive the light-emitting information detected by the color correction detection device (see Lee et al., Fig. 1; {The examiner submits that a communication interface is inherent in Lee’s flash as it receives information from an external color detector.}). The claim differs from Lee et al. in that it requires that the electrical connection be through a connection wire.
However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Rees teaches a communication wire (Fig. 3, communication line “84”) that connects a color monitoring camera (Fig. 3, color monitoring camera “82”) and a plurality of scene cameras with light sources (Fig. 3, scene camera “86”). In light of the teaching of Rees, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to allow for wired communication between Lee’s light module and color detector because wired communication allows for a comparatively stabler connection and less computationally intensive communication interfaces.
E. Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2005/0134723 A1) in view of Rivard et al. (US 2012/0154627 A1) et al. (US 2015/0338307 A1) in view in view of Rees (US # 10,694,091 B2) and further in view of Clawson (US 2014/0340573 A1)
As to claim 37, Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al. and Rees, teaches the external flash according to claim 36. The claim differs from Lee et al., as modified by Rivard et al. and Rees, in that it requires that flash's communication interface be a USB interface used as a charging interface. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Clawson teaches a light-emitting module for a camera/mobile device (Figs. 1 and 2, case "100" with light sources "104") including a USB port (Fig. 1, port "132") that allows for charging of the module's battery ([0047]). In light of the teaching of Clawson, the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to include a USB port that accepts a USB wire as the connecting wire of Lee et al., as modified by Rees, because USB connection provides numerous advantages, like speedy communication without the need for Internet and battery charging functionality.
VI. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
9/23/2026
