DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed on February 27, 2026 is acknowledged. Currently Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 20 has been amended.
The applicant’s amendment to the title has been accepted and the objection to the specification have been withdrawn.
The applicant alleges that the references specifically Smith on pages 10-11 of the applicant’s filed remarks fails to teach, “an adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine, when the target pixel is a corner pixel, one or more valid pixels of the target kernel and at least one reference pixel located outside the target kernel to be adjacent pixels of the target pixel”
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Smith as seen in Figure 3A, 3B and Paragraph [0068] discloses, “Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 5, or may not be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 7, discussed below. Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may not be contiguous with each other and may or may not completely surround the pixel of interest. For example, for the kernel 302 shown in FIG. 3A, if the pixel of interest is at an edge or corner of the detector array, the neighboring pixels would not completely surround the pixel of interest” Therefore the neighboring pixel does not necessarily be part of the kernel since it does not need to be immediately adjacent to a pixel which is within the kernel. Since the reference pixel as stated by the applicant is outside the kernel, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Smith will satisfy the limitation above.
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations “threshold value calculator”, “adjacent pixel determiner", “defect detector”, “complexity calculator” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1, 16 and 20 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Paragraph[0028]The defective pixel determiner 200 may include a pixel attribute extractor 210, a complexity calculator 220, a threshold value calculator 230, an adjacent pixel determiner 240, and a defect detector 250, each of which is preferably embodied as corresponding program instructions executed by a processor.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1-3, 11, 14-15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu US2013/0208152 in view of Bergstrom et al. US2015/0269742 hereinafter referred to as Bergstrom and Smith US2019/0170655.
As per Claim 1, Hsu teaches a image signal processor comprising:
a defect detector configured to determine whether the target pixel is a defective pixel according to a result of comparing a difference value between pixel data of the adjacent pixel and pixel data of the target pixel with the threshold value, (Hsu, Paragraph [0076], “determine whether the relationship between the target pixel and the adjacent same-color pixels is different from the relationship between the adjacent same-color pixels via comparing the defect pixel threshold value with the adjacent difference value, to determine whether the target pixel is the defect pixel”)
Hsu does not explicitly teach a threshold value calculator configured to calculate a threshold value for a target pixel based on complexity of a target kernel including the target pixel;
Bergstrom teaches a threshold value calculator configured to calculate a threshold value for a target pixel based on complexity of a target kernel including the target pixel; (Bergstrom, Paragraph [0061], “For example, in some embodiments, an M by N pixel kernel is defined and analyzed, wherein M and N are any positive integers. In further embodiments, a square N by N pixel kernel is analyzed, and in still further embodiments N is an odd integer and the target pixel is in the center of the N by N square. In such embodiments, edges can be detected in a two-step process. First, the variance of a particular kernel including a target pixel is analyzed. If the variance exceeds a certain threshold, the target pixel is compared to mean pixel value within the kernel. If the target pixel is a certain threshold above the mean of the kernel, the target pixel is deemed an edge pixel. In some embodiments, the compared values of pixels can comprise luminance values detected in each pixel”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Bergstrom into Hsu because by utilizing a dynamic threshold will allow the defect detector of Hsu to be adaptable to different images containing different types/values of pixels.
Hsu in view of Bergstrom does not explicitly teach an adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine, when the target pixel is a corner pixel, one or more valid pixels of the target kernel and at least one reference pixel located outside the target kernel to be adjacent pixels of the target pixel; and wherein the corner pixel is a pixel located at a vertex of the target kernel.
Smith teaches an adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine, when the target pixel is a corner pixel, one or more valid pixels of the target kernel and at least one reference pixel located outside the target kernel to be adjacent pixels of the target pixel; and wherein the corner pixel is a pixel located at a vertex of the target kernel. (Smith, Paragraph [0068]-[0069], Figure 2A, 3B, 5, 7, “Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 5, or may not be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 7, discussed below. Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may not be contiguous with each other and may or may not completely surround the pixel of interest. For example, for the kernel 302 shown in FIG. 3A, if the pixel of interest is at an edge or corner of the detector array, the neighboring pixels would not completely surround the pixel of interest.” Therefore the neighboring pixel does not necessarily be part of the kernel since it does not need to be immediately adjacent to a pixel which is within the kernel. Since the reference pixel as stated by the applicant is outside the kernel, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Smith will satisfy the limitation above)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Smith into Hsu in view of Bergstrom because by determining the kernel and the adjacent pixels of the target pixel to be used for performing processing of Bergstrom will assist in creating a more accurate defect detector of Hsu.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 1.
As per Claim 2, Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith teaches the image signal processor according to claim 1, wherein: the complexity is an average deviation of valid pixels included in the target kernel. (Bergstrom, Paragraph [0061], “For example, in some embodiments, an M by N pixel kernel is defined and analyzed, wherein M and N are any positive integers. In further embodiments, a square N by N pixel kernel is analyzed, and in still further embodiments N is an odd integer and the target pixel is in the center of the N by N square. In such embodiments, edges can be detected in a two-step process. First, the variance of a particular kernel including a target pixel is analyzed. If the variance exceeds a certain threshold, the target pixel is compared to mean pixel value within the kernel. If the target pixel is a certain threshold above the mean of the kernel, the target pixel is deemed an edge pixel. In some embodiments, the compared values of pixels can comprise luminance values detected in each pixel”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 3, Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith teaches the image signal processor according to claim 1, wherein: the valid pixels include pixels except for both the target pixel and a fixed defective pixel serving as a predetermined defective pixel in the target kernel. (Bergstrom, Paragraph [0061] and Hsu, Paragraph [0076] and Smith, Paragraph [0068]-[0069], Figure 2A, 3B, 5, 7)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 11, Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith teaches the image signal processor according to claim 1, wherein: when the target pixel is a normal pixel other than the corner pixel, the adjacent pixel determiner determines a valid pixel of the target kernel to be the adjacent pixel. (Smith, Paragraph [0068]-[0069], Figure 2A, 3B, 5, 7)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 14, Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith teaches the image signal processor according to claim 1, wherein: the target kernel includes pixels corresponding to the same color as the color of the target pixel. (Smith, Paragraph [0068]-[0069], Figure 2A, 3B, 5, 7)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 15, Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith teaches the image signal processor according to claim 1, wherein the target kernel includes: pixels arranged in an (N × N) matrix including N rows and N columns, wherein N is an integer of 3 or greater. (Bergstrom, Paragraph [0061], “For example, in some embodiments, an M by N pixel kernel is defined and analyzed, wherein M and N are any positive integers. In further embodiments, a square N by N pixel kernel is analyzed, and in still further embodiments N is an odd integer and the target pixel is in the center of the N by N square.”)
The rationale applied to the rejection of claim 1 has been incorporated herein.
As per Claim 20, Hsu teaches an image signal processor comprising:
a defect detector configured to determine whether the target pixel is a defective pixel according to a result of comparing a difference value between pixel data of the adjacent pixel and pixel data of the target pixel with the threshold value. (Hsu, Paragraph [0076], “determine whether the relationship between the target pixel and the adjacent same-color pixels is different from the relationship between the adjacent same-color pixels via comparing the defect pixel threshold value with the adjacent difference value, to determine whether the target pixel is the defect pixel”)
Hsu does not explicitly teach a complexity calculator configured to calculate complexity for a target kernel including a target pixel; a threshold value calculator configured to, and calculate a threshold value for the target pixel based on the complexity;
Bergstrom teaches a complexity calculator configured to calculate complexity for a target kernel including a target pixel; a threshold value calculator configured to, and calculate a threshold value for the target pixel based on the complexity; (Bergstrom, Paragraph [0061], “For example, in some embodiments, an M by N pixel kernel is defined and analyzed, wherein M and N are any positive integers. In further embodiments, a square N by N pixel kernel is analyzed, and in still further embodiments N is an odd integer and the target pixel is in the center of the N by N square. In such embodiments, edges can be detected in a two-step process. First, the variance of a particular kernel including a target pixel is analyzed. If the variance exceeds a certain threshold, the target pixel is compared to mean pixel value within the kernel. If the target pixel is a certain threshold above the mean of the kernel, the target pixel is deemed an edge pixel. In some embodiments, the compared values of pixels can comprise luminance values detected in each pixel”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Bergstrom into Hsu because by utilizing a dynamic threshold will allow the defect detector of Hsu to be adaptable to different images containing different types/values of pixels.
Hsu in view of Bergstrom does not explicitly teach determine whether the target pixel is a corner pixel located at a vertex of the target kernel; an adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine a valid pixel of the target kernel to be an adjacent pixel when the target pixel is not the corner pixel; and
wherein the adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine, when the target pixel is the corner pixel, one or more valid pixels of the target kernel and at least one reference pixel located outside the target kernel to be adjacent pixels of the target pixel.
Smith teaches determine whether the target pixel is a corner pixel located at a vertex the target kernel; an adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine a valid pixel of the target kernel to be an adjacent pixel when the target pixel is not the corner pixel; and (Smith, Paragraph [0068]-[0069], Figure 2A, 3B, 5, 7, “Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 5, or may not be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 7, discussed below. Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may not be contiguous with each other and may or may not completely surround the pixel of interest. For example, for the kernel 302 shown in FIG. 3A, if the pixel of interest is at an edge or corner of the detector array, the neighboring pixels would not completely surround the pixel of interest. Moreover, as discussed above, one or more of the neighboring pixels may be discarded as an outlier and not used to determine the parameter values” and “As indicated by the shading of the pixels in the 5×5 kernel 702 and the non-shading of the center 3×3 area of the kernel, the center 3×3 pixels in the 5×5 kernel may be excluded from the determination of the parameter values for the signal model, i.e., so that the neighboring pixels used to determine the parameter values are not immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest. By using pixels that are not immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, as illustrated in FIG. 7, if a defect overlaps the boundary of the pixel of interest 304, the defect will not affect the parameter values for the signal model determined by the neighboring pixels 702”)
wherein the adjacent pixel determiner configured to determine, when the target pixel is the corner pixel, one or more valid pixels of the target kernel and at least one reference pixel located outside the target kernel to be adjacent pixels of the target pixel. (Smith, Paragraph [0068]-[0069], Figure 2A, 3B, 5, 7, “Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIGS. 3A, 3B, and 5, or may not be immediately adjacent to the pixel of interest, e.g., as illustrated in FIG. 7, discussed below. Further, the pixels neighboring the pixel of interest used to determine the parameter values may not be contiguous with each other and may or may not completely surround the pixel of interest. For example, for the kernel 302 shown in FIG. 3A, if the pixel of interest is at an edge or corner of the detector array, the neighboring pixels would not completely surround the pixel of interest.” Therefore the neighboring pixel does not necessarily be part of the kernel since it does not need to be immediately adjacent to a pixel which is within the kernel. Since the reference pixel as stated by the applicant is outside the kernel, the broadest reasonable interpretation of Smith will satisfy the limitation above)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Smith into Hsu in view of Bergstrom because by determining the kernel and the adjacent pixels of the target pixel to be used for performing processing of Bergstrom will assist in creating a more accurate defect detector of Hsu.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the three references to obtain the invention in Claim 20.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu US2013/0208152 in view of Bergstrom et al. US2015/0269742 hereinafter referred to as Bergstrom and Smith US2019/0170655 as applied to Claim 3 and further in view of Lee et al US2022/0311934 hereinafter referred to as Lee.
As per Claim 4, Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith teaches the image signal processor according to claim 3,
Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith does not explicitly teach wherein: the fixed defective pixel includes a phase-difference detection autofocus (PDAF) pixel.
Lee teaches wherein: the fixed defective pixel includes a phase-difference detection autofocus (PDAF) pixel. (Lee, Paragraph [0068], “when a phase detection autofocus (PDAF) pixel is included in the pixel array”)
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the teachings of Lee into Hsu in view of Bergstrom and Smith because by utilizing a PDAF pixel will enables faster and more precise autofocus by directly calculating the lens adjustment needed, unlike traditional contrast-based autofocus that hunts for focus.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to combine the four references to obtain the invention in Claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-19 are allowed.
Claims 5-10 and 12-13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 MING HON whose telephone number is (571)270-5245. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Emily Terrell can be reached on 571-270-3717. 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.
/MING Y HON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2666
Prosecution Insights