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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (“IDS”) filed on 12/12/2023, 11/25/2024 and 02/23/2026 was reviewed and the listed references were noted.
Drawings
The 18 page drawings have been considered and placed on record in the file.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-14 are currently pending. Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 03/02/2026 have been fully considered; but, they are not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues examiner failed to provide adequate evidence of examination burden. In item 2 of the Restriction Requirement, Examiner has stated the difference between invention 1 and 2, as directed to the performance of different operations upon different acquired parameters and inputs. Additionally, in item 1 of the Restriction Requirement, Examiner identifies the different CPC subgroups for each invention as the basis for serious examination burden. Accordingly, Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument, and therefore, the restriction has been maintained.
Claim Interpretation
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – 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.
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.
7. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
8. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: "at least one processing device configured to…” in Claims 8-14.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1, 4-7, 8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are directed to the absence of significant, further image processing with the generated blending weights for the LDR images in independent Claims 1 and 8. Dependent Claims 4-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to their dependencies from Claims 1 and 8. However, Claims 2-3 and 9-10 remedy the deficiencies of Claims 1 and 8, as stated above, and are not rejected under this section of the rules.
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 1-14 are allowable over prior art and will be allowed once the above-described rejections of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(f) are overcome. Claims 2-3 and 9-10 are objected to as being dependent from rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Consider independent Claim 1, the closest prior art reference, Ström (US 20160255356) discloses “A method comprising: obtaining a high dynamic range (HDR) image;” (Ström; Fig. 7, element 10 (See image below)) “generating low dynamic range (LDR) images based on the HDR image,” (Ström; Fig. 7, element 11; [0047], “Basically the process is the reverse of constructing a HDR image from multiple SDR images taken with different shutter speeds. This means that each tone mapped version 11, 21 of the original image 10 or the reconstructed image 20 is associated with a respective tone mapper setting value representing a respective shutter speed.”; Examiner notes Ström teaches “low dynamic range (LDR) video, also known as standard dynamic range (SDR)” (Ström; [0002]). Examiner had interpreted SDR and LDR as interchangeable terminology.) “at least some of the LDR images associated with different exposure levels;” (Ström; [0047], “Basically the process is the reverse of constructing a HDR image from multiple SDR images taken with different shutter speeds.”); Examiner notes Ström teaches (Ström, [0005], “Another evaluation metric that has been proposed for HDR images is multi-exposure PSNR (mPSNR) [2]. mPSNR is based on the fact that a HDR image can be constructed using several SDR images taken with different shutter speeds. This process can be reversed by constructing “virtual photographs” of the HDR image, simulating different shutter speeds as shown in FIG. 1.” (emphasis added); Examiner notes the varying different shutter speeds of the SDR images in Ström is interpreted as varying exposure levels.). Ström does not explicitly disclose “generating tone-type weight maps based on the LDR images,
PNG
media_image1.png
358
573
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In yet another field of endeavor, Qian (WO 2020211334) teaches ““generating tone-type weight maps based on the LDR images,” (Qian, [0003], “…the two or more LDR images with different exposures are divided into a plurality of blocks. A weight is determined for each of the plurality of blocks….The weight of a block may be determined based on the average value of pixel values of pixels of the block.”).
Additionally, in yet another field of endeavor, Bouzaraa (US 20200134787) teaches “generating blending weights for the LDR images based on the tone-type weight maps” (Bouzaraa, [0043], “a weighting layer configured to generate a weighting map based on one or more quality measures for reducing the effects of low quality regions of the first LDR image and the second LDR image in generating the HDR image. The weighting map represents a quality assessment of the corresponding LDR image according to a specific quality measure such as contrast and/or well-exposedness and/or saturation, and various other measures.”; Examiner notes Bouzaraa teaches (Bouzaraa, [0069], “For example, if the weighting maps are based on the well-exposedness measure, pixels in the input LDR images with values close to 127 (or 0.5) can get higher weights in an embodiment. In contrast, pixel values close to 0 or 255 which correspond respectively to under- and over-exposed areas, will get lower weights.”). Examiner has interpreted the pixel values as tone weights.)
However, none of the cited prior art references, alone or in combination, provides a motivation to teach the ordered combination of the above-described limitations with “at least one of the LDR images associated with two or more of the tone-type weight maps” or “for at least one of the LDR images based on at least two tone-type weight maps associated with at least two of the LDR images.” Dependent Claims 2-7, inherently included the above described allowable subject matter due to their dependencies from Claim 1.
Independent Claim 8 recites an electronic device with components corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 1. The recited elements of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Therefore, independent Claim 8 is not rejected over prior art, because none of the cited references, alone or in combination, provide a motivation to teach the ordered combination of “at least one of the LDR images associated with two or more of the tone-type weight maps” or “for at least one of the LDR images based on at least two tone-type weight maps associated with at least two of the LDR images.” Dependent Claims 9-14, inherently included the above described allowable subject matter due to their dependencies from Claim 8.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Annie Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-1673. The examiner can be normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00a – 5:00p.
13. 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, Amandeep Saini can be reached on (571)272-3382. 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.
/ANNIE H PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2662 /Siamak Harandi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2662