Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/464,683

Flicker Mitigation for Image Capture

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Sep 11, 2023
Examiner
CHEN, CHIA WEI A
Art Unit
2637
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Apple Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
497 granted / 647 resolved
+14.8% vs TC avg
Strong +20% interview lift
Without
With
+19.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
25 currently pending
Career history
672
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
§103
48.3%
+8.3% vs TC avg
§102
30.2%
-9.8% vs TC avg
§112
10.2%
-29.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 647 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim(s) 1-4, 7-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2022/0166916 A1) in view of Nossek (US 2021/0392261 A1). Claim 1, Park teaches a method of digital image capture (see Fig. 3), comprising: obtaining a first image captured by a first image capture device, wherein the first image is captured at a first exposure level (step S303 and paragraph 0101); determining that the first image does not meet a first image quality criterion (if flicker is detected, step S307; paragraph 0103); obtaining a number, n, of additional images captured by the first image capture device, wherein for each of the n additional images captured (perform imaging S313; paragraph 0108), the method further comprises: determining whether the respective additional image meets the first image quality criterion, wherein the first image capture device is configured to continue capturing the n additional images until a respective additional image meets the first image quality criterion (when flicker is no longer detected, step S307); and performing at least one post-processing operation on the additional image that was determined to meet the first image quality criterion (signal processor 200 may processing on the digital signal; paragraph 0049). Park is silent regarding wherein the first image quality criterion is a dynamic image quality criterion that changes between the capture of the first image and the capture of at least one of the n additional images. Nossek teaches flicker detection (paragraph 0036) and examining a first image quality criterion (luminance threshold Th; paragraph 0035) wherein the first image quality criterion is a dynamic image quality criterion that changes between the capture of the first image and the capture of at least one of the n additional images (the threshold may change dynamically from frame to frame, see paragraph 0039, and smart thresholding of paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Nossek with that of Park in order to improve flicker mitigation and to improve the ability to handle several light sources with differing flickering frequencies (see paragraph 0075-0076 of Nossek). Claim 2, Park further teaches wherein the first image capture device comprises a rolling shutter image sensor, and wherein the first exposure level comprises an integration time for a given row of pixels on the rolling shutter image sensor (shutter unit 103 may operate in a rolling shutter method by which charge accumulation timing is adjusted in units of lines; paragraph 0040). Claim 3, Park further teaches wherein the first image capture device comprises a global capture image sensor, and wherein the first exposure level comprises an integration time during which all rows of pixels on the global capture image sensor are exposed (shutter unit 103 may operate in a global shutter method by which charge accumulation timing is adjusted in units of surfaces; paragraph 0040). Claim 4, Nossek further teaches wherein the first image quality criterion comprises determining that an average illuminance value for a region of interest (ROI) with a given image is within a threshold amount of a target average ROI illuminance value (average luminance Yp of a cluster of pixels is compared to threshold Th; paragraph 0035). Claim 7, Park further teaches wherein determining that the first image does not meet a first image quality criterion comprises: determining a presence of light source flicker (determination if flicker is detected, step S305; paragraph 0102). Claim 8, Nossek further teaches determining the presence of light source flicker further comprises determining at least one of: an ambient illuminance; a flicker frequency of the light source (flickering frequency of a light source is detected; paragraph 0074); or a flicker percentage of the light source. Claim 9, Park in view of Nossek teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding: discarding the first image; and discarding each of the n additional images that were not determined to meet the first image quality criterion. However, Park discloses that flicker is undesirable and aims to reduce flicker in captured images (paragraph 0010-0012). Park further discloses performing imaging until flickering is no longer detected in the captured image (paragraph 0120). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have discarded images in which flicker is present since these images having flicker artefacts are undesired. Claim 10, Park further teaches applying a first amount of programmable delay prior to capturing at least one of the n additional images (frame rate is changed prior to performing imaging after flicker is detected; step S317 in Fig. 3). Claim 11, Park teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1), comprising: a memory (memory 400; Fig. 1); one or more processors (signal processor 200 and controller 600; Fig. 1); and a first image capture device (imaging apparatus 10; Fig. 1), wherein the first image capture device is configured to execute instructions causing the first image capture device to: capture a first image, wherein the first image is captured at a first exposure level (step S303 and paragraph 0101); determine that the first image does not meet a first image quality criterion (if flicker is detected, step S307; paragraph 0103); capture a number, n, of additional images (perform imaging S313; paragraph 0108), wherein, for each of the n additional images captured, the first image capture device is further configured to execute instructions causing the first image capture device to: determine whether the respective additional image meets the first image quality criterion, wherein the first image capture device is configured to continue capturing the n additional images until a respective additional image meets the first image quality criterion (when flicker is no longer detected, step S307); and transmit the additional image that was determined to meet the first image quality criterion to the one or more processors for the performance of at least one post-processing operation (signal processor 200 may processing on the digital signal; paragraph 0049). Park is silent regarding wherein the first image quality criterion is a dynamic image quality criterion that changes between the capture of the first image and the capture of at least one of the n additional images. Nossek teaches flicker detection (paragraph 0036) and examining a first image quality criterion (luminance threshold Th; paragraph 0035) wherein the first image quality criterion is a dynamic image quality criterion that changes between the capture of the first image and the capture of at least one of the n additional images (the threshold may change dynamically from frame to frame, see paragraph 0039, and smart thresholding of paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Nossek with that of Park in order to improve flicker mitigation and to improve the ability to handle several light sources with differing flickering frequencies (see paragraph 0075-0076 of Nossek). Claim 12, Park further teaches wherein the first image capture device comprises: (a) a rolling shutter image sensor, wherein the first exposure level comprises an integration time for a given row of pixels on the rolling shutter image sensor (shutter unit 103 may operate in a rolling shutter method by which charge accumulation timing is adjusted in units of lines; paragraph 0040). or (b) a global capture image sensor, wherein the first exposure level comprises an integration time during which all rows of pixels on the global capture image sensor are exposed (shutter unit 103 may operate in a global shutter method by which charge accumulation timing is adjusted in units of surfaces; paragraph 0040). Claim 13, Park further teaches wherein each of the n additional images are captured at the first exposure level (controller 600 may also acquire a plurality of images at the same frame rate and same shutter speed for flicker detection; paragraph 0069). Claim 14, Nossek further teaches wherein the first image quality criterion comprises determining that an average illuminance value for a region of interest (ROI) with a given image is within a threshold amount of a target average ROI illuminance value (average luminance Yp of a cluster of pixels is compared to threshold Th; paragraph 0035). Claim 16, Park in view of Nossek teaches the electronic device of claim 11, but is silent regarding wherein the first image capture device is further configured to execute instructions causing the first image capture device to: discard the first image; and discard each of the n additional images that were not determined to meet the first image quality criterion. However, Park discloses that flicker is undesirable and aims to reduce flicker in captured images (paragraph 0010-0012). Park further discloses performing imaging until flickering is no longer detected in the captured image (paragraph 0120). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have discarded images in which flicker is present since these images having flicker artefacts are undesired. Claim 17, Park further teaches wherein the first image capture device is further configured to execute instructions causing the first image capture device to: apply a first amount of programmable delay prior to capturing at least one of the n additional images (frame rate is changed prior to performing imaging after flicker is detected; step S317 in Fig. 3). Claim 18, Park teaches an electronic device (Fig. 1), comprising: a memory (memory 400; Fig. 1); a first image capture device (imaging apparatus 10; Fig. 1); and one or more processors operatively coupled to the memory (signal processor 200 and controller 600; Fig. 1), wherein the one or more processors are configured to execute instructions causing the one or more processors to: obtain a first image captured by a first image capture device, wherein the first image is captured at a first exposure level (step S303 and paragraph 0101); determine that the first image does not meet a first image quality criterion (if flicker is detected, step S307; paragraph 0103); obtain a number, n, of additional images captured by the first image capture device (perform imaging S313; paragraph 0108), wherein, for each of the n additional images captured, the one or more processors are further configured to execute instructions causing the one or more processors to: determine whether the respective additional image meets the first image quality criterion, wherein the first image capture device is configured to continue capturing the n additional images until a respective additional image meets the first image quality criterion (when flicker is no longer detected, step S307); and perform at least one post-processing operation on the additional image that was determined to meet the first image quality criterion (signal processor 200 may processing on the digital signal; paragraph 0049). Park is silent regarding wherein the first image quality criterion is a dynamic image quality criterion that changes between the capture of the first image and the capture of at least one of the n additional images. Nossek teaches flicker detection (paragraph 0036) and examining a first image quality criterion (luminance Yp compared to threshold Th; paragraph 0035) wherein the first image quality criterion is a dynamic image quality criterion that changes between the capture of the first image and the capture of at least one of the n additional images (the threshold may change dynamically from frame to frame, see paragraph 0039, and smart thresholding of paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Nossek with that of Park in order to improve flicker mitigation and to improve the ability to handle several light sources with differing flickering frequencies (see paragraph 0075-0076 of Nossek). Claim 19, Nossek further teaches wherein the first image quality criterion comprises determining: (a) that an average illuminance value for a region of interest (ROI) with a given image is within a threshold amount of a target average ROI illuminance value (average luminance Yp of a cluster of pixels is compared to threshold Th; paragraph 0035); or (b) that an ambient illuminance value associated with the capture of a given image is within a threshold amount of a target ambient illuminance value. Claim 20, Nossek further teaches at least one sensor, wherein the instructions causing the one or more processors to determine that the first image does not meet a first image quality criterion (luminance compared to threshold Th; paragraph 0034-0035) further comprise instructions causing the one or more processors to: determine, using the at least one sensor, a presence of light source flicker (sensor 210 detects flicker; paragraph 0033), wherein determining the presence of light source flicker further comprises determining at least one of: an ambient illuminance value; a flicker frequency of the light source (flickering frequency of a light source is detected; paragraph 0074); or a flicker percentage of the light source. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Nossek, and further in view of Suzuki (US 2019/0215434 A1). Claim 5, Park in view of Nossek teaches the method of claim 1, but is silent regarding wherein the first image quality criterion comprises determining that an ambient illuminance value associated with the capture of a given image is within a threshold amount of a target ambient illuminance value. Suzuki discloses determining a first image quality criterion wherein the first image quality criterion comprises determining that an ambient illuminance value associated with the capture of a given image is within a threshold amount of a target ambient illuminance value (luminance is detected and ambient brightness is equal to or less than a threshold; paragraph 0100). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Suzuki with that of Park and Nossek in order to improve precision of a processing result by detecting flicker (see paragraph 0094 of Suzuki). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached. 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 CHIAWEI A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 12:00pm - 9:00pm EST. 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 at (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. /CHIAWEI CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 11, 2023
Application Filed
Aug 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 06, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 26, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12604090
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND STORAGE MEDIUM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589977
APPARATUS FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION, CARGO HANDLING METHOD, AND MONITORING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12574622
IMAGE CAPTURE APPARATUS INCLUDING A MULTI-FUNCTION INTERCONNECT MECHANISM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12563298
SHAKE CORRECTION DEVICE AND IMAGING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12556788
ELECTRONIC MODULE AND IMAGING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+19.5%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 647 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month