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. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 4, 2026 has been entered.
III. Claim Interpretation/Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1,11, and 20 have removed “color tone adjustment system” from the ambit of 112(f) interpretation. Therefore, the associated rejection under 112(b) has been overcome.
IV. Response to Arguments
A. Applicant's arguments regarding the independent claims and Borremans et al., Wang, and Kadoi et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As to Borremans et al., Applicant claims that the reference does not adjust a value for a color of an image containing light source illumination data because it accounts for light sources in order to a make a virtual object added to the scene after image capture seem for natural. The examiner disagrees with this argument and submits that Borremans’s feature of detecting light sources in order to make an added object seem more natural is simply one application or embodiment of the more general approach of detecting light sources in order to adjust white balance of the captured image. Paragraph [0114] of Borremans, which Applicant specifically mentions in its remarks, begins by stating that “[i]n an example….” Further as to Borremans et al., Applicant again advances a post-processing argument, stating that “Borremans et al. teaches [a post-processing] light correction of an image after the image has been captured” and that “such teachings are readily distinguishable from the claimed limitation.” They are not distinguishable from the claimed limitations. Claims 1 and 20 expressly require that “adjusting is performed after capture of the image.” Applicant’s post-processing argument is again presented with respect to Wang but is unpersuasive as explained above.
As to Kadoi, Applicant argues that the reference does not adjust the color tone of the image; rather, according to Applicant, Kadoi adjusts the light sources to create a color map. Kadoi et al. indeed adjusts the light sources as Applicant mentions. However, this feature was not relied upon to satisfy the color tone adjustment claim limitations. Instead, the examiner referenced Kadoi’s Fig. 4 and paras. [0039] and [0105], which disclose white balance adjustment based on the color map acquired by adjusting the light sources.
B. Applicant’s arguments with respect to Mirzaei Domabi et al. have been considered, and the examiner will withdraw the outstanding rejections in which the reference is used to disclose identification of light sources. While Mirzaei Domabi et al. likely discloses the identification of a light source in estimating a color illuminant, the examiner is opting to rely on the reference only for its disclosure of the limitations of claims 8 and 18.
C. Applicant's arguments regarding the independent claims and Cross et al. have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the reference is deficient for its disclosure of white balance correction to an entire field of view, while the claims require adjusting a value for a color for a portion of an image containing light source illumination data. The examiner disagrees and submits that Cross et al. was only relied upon to show white balance correction on an image after capture and before the image is transmitted to an image receipt location. Cross’s specific white balance process is irrelevant to the examiner’s combination.
Regardless and to the extent that this argument is applicable to Borremans et al., Wang, and Kadoi, the claims only require that a color of a portion of an image, which is encompassed by an entire field of view, is adjusted. The examiner notes para. [0072] of Applicant’s specification, stating that “color tone adjustments may…be made…only [on] the portions of the image that are influenced by the illumination of the light source.” Note that this passage uses the phrase “only the portions of the image” with the crucial term “only,” which is not used in the claims. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Thus, claims 1,11, and 20 are broad enough to encompass adjustment on an entire field of view, which necessarily includes portions of the field that contain light source illumination data and are influenced by a light source. However, see section VIII below for discussion of a prior art reference that discloses white balance adjustments made only on the portions of an image that is influenced by the illumination of a light source.
V. Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: On line 2, the examiner suggests inserting “by” between “light source” and “accessing.”
VI. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 7 and 17 recite “adjusting a value of a color of a portion of the image,” while claims 1 and 11, on which claims 1 and 11 depend, already require “adjusting a value for a color for a portion of the image.” Although “of” is used in claims 7 and 17 instead of “for,” the examiner submits that this difference in wording does not alter the scope of the claims with respect to claims 1 and 11. To overcome this rejection, Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims comply with the statutory requirements.
VII. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 1,3,7,11,13,17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borremans et al. (US 2022/0003907 A1) in view of Cross et al. (US 2012/0274724 A1)
As to claim 1, Borremans et al. (Fig. 27A) discloses a method, the method comprising:
receiving, utilizing an image capture device (Fig. 20, sensor “10”) coupled to an information handling device employing a color tone adjustment system ([0114]; {The examiner reads the processor of Borremans as the claimed information handling device/claimed color tone adjustment system.}), an image of a scene (Fig. 27A, step “460”; [0115], lines 1 and 2);
identifying, using the color tone adjustment system, a light source providing illumination within the image (Fig. 27A, step “466”); and
adjusting, using the color tone adjustment system, a color tone of the image based upon characteristics of the light source ([0115], last three lines; {The examiner reads the inherent white balance gains/parameters associated with the identified light source as the claimed characteristics.}), wherein the adjusting the color tone of the image comprises adjusting a value for a color for a portion of the image, wherein the adjusting the value for the color for the portion of the image comprises adjusting the portion of the image influenced by the light source providing illumination of the image ([0115]; {Note section IV(C) above as well.}).
The claim differs from Borremans et al. in that it requires that the color tone adjustment of the image is performed after capture of the image by the image capture device but before the image is transferred to an image receipt location. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cross et al. discloses a videoconferencing system (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of camera systems that respectively capture video of a participating user and transmit the video to other users participating in the videoconference ([0015]). Each camera system includes a video camera (Fig. 1, video camera “18”) and information handling system (Fig. 1, information handling system “10”). The information handling system performs a white balance correction process on a captured image then transmits the corrected image to participating users ([0016]).
In light of the teaching of Cross 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 apply the white balance adjustment method of Borremans to a camera system that is part of a video conference, where the white balance of captured video is adjusted and the adjusted video is sent to other users participating in the conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Borremans’ method in this way would confer the benefits of that method to a commonplace work activity, where high-quality images are essential. Also, by adjusting white balance at the camera, the system can avoid transmission delays incurred when the image is transferred to a networked system for processing, like a cloud server.
As to claim 11, Borremans et al. teaches an image capture device (Fig. 20, sensor “10” and processor of para. [0114]) configured to receive and process image data to adjust a value for a color for a portion of an image containing light source illumination data (Fig. 27A, step “466”) received by the image capture device ([0115]).
The claim differs from Borremans et al. in that it requires that the image capture device be connectable to a system comprising a processor and memory operably connected to the processor. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cross et al. discloses a videoconferencing system (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of camera systems that respectively capture video of a participating user and transmit the video to other users participating in the videoconference ([0015]). Each camera system includes a processor and memory connected to the processor (Fig. 1, CPU “12” and RAM “14”; [0015], lines 1-8; {The claimed system is another camera in the videoconferencing system including the CPU and RAM.}), and each camera system performs a white balance correction process on a captured image then transmits the corrected image to participating users ([0016]).
In light of the teaching of Cross 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 apply the white balance adjustment method of Borremans to a camera system that is part of a video conference, where the white balance of captured video is adjusted and the adjusted video is sent to other users participating in the conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Borremans’ method in this way would confer the benefits of that method to a commonplace work activity, where high-quality images are essential.
As to claim 13, Borremans et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image data comprises identifying the light source illumination data that comprises characteristics of a light source (see Borremans et al., [0115], last three lines; {The examiner reads the inherent white balance gains/parameters associated with the identified light source as the claimed characteristics.}).
As to claim 17, Borremans et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to adjust comprises adjusting comprises adjusting a value of a color of a portion of the image (see Borremans et al., [0115], last three lines; {White balance inherently involves color adjustment.}).
Claims 3 and 7 are method claims reciting steps substantially similar to the processor
functions of claims 13 and 17. Therefore, claims 3 and 7 are rejected as detailed above.
As Borremans et al. discloses a product (sensor system of Fig. 1) and a computer readable medium storing instructions executable to accomplish the processor functions of claim 1 ([0138]), which are the same as the steps of claim 20, the examiner submits that the combination of Borremans et al. and Cross et al. satisfies the limitations of claim 20.
B. Claims 1-7,10-17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0132563 A1) in view of Cross et al. (US 2012/0274724 A1)
As to claim 1, Wang discloses a method (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving, utilizing an image capture device (Fig. 14, unnumbered camera hole in device “1000”) coupled to an information handling device employing a color tone adjustment system (Fig. 15, processor “200”), an image of a scene (Fig. 1, step “S110”);
identifying, using the color tone adjustment system, a light source providing illumination within the image (Fig. 1, step “S130,” “determining the type of scene;” [0039]); and
adjusting, using the color tone adjustment system, a color tone of the image based upon characteristics of the light source (Fig. 1, step “S130,” “performing a white balance processsing;” {The examiner reads the color temperature’s associated white balance parameters as the claimed characteristics.}), wherein the adjusting the color tone of the image comprises adjusting a value for a color for a portion of the image, wherein the adjusting the value for the color for the portion of the image comprises adjusting the portion of the image influenced by the light source providing illumination of the image (Fig. 1, step “130”; {Note section IV(C) above as well.}).
The claim differs from Wang in that it requires that the color tone adjustment of the image is performed after capture of the image by an image capture device but before the image is transferred to an image receipt location. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cross et al. discloses a videoconferencing system (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of camera systems that respectively capture video of a participating user and transmit the video to other users participating in the videoconference ([0015]). Each camera system includes a video camera (Fig. 1, video camera “18”) and information handling system (Fig. 1, information handling system “10”). The information handling system performs a white balance correction process on a captured image then transmits the corrected image to participating users ([0016]).
In light of the teaching of Cross 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 apply the white balance adjustment method of Wang to a camera system that is part of a video conference, where the white balance of captured video is adjusted and the adjusted video is sent to other users participating in the conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Wang’s method in this way would confer the benefits of that method to a commonplace work activity, where high-quality images are essential.
As to claim 10, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying the light source comprises querying a secondary information source for characteristics related to the light source (see Wang, [0041], lines 4-11; {The inherent storage can be reasonably construed as secondary to the portion of memory “300” that stores the program of Fig. 15.}).
As to claim 11, Wang teaches an image capture device (Fig. 15, electronic device “1000”) configured to receive and process image data to adjust a value for a color for a portion of an image containing light source illumination data (Fig. 1, step “S130,” “determining the type of scene;” [0039]) received by the image capture device (Fig. 1, step “S130”).
The claim differs from Wang in that it requires that the image capture device be connectable to a system comprising a processor and memory operably connected to the processor. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cross et al. discloses a videoconferencing system (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of camera systems that respectively capture video of a participating user and transmit the video to other users participating in the videoconference ([0015]). Each camera system includes a processor and memory connected to the processor (Fig. 1, CPU “12” and RAM “14”; [0015], lines 1-8; {The claimed system is another camera in the videoconferencing system including the CPU and RAM.}), and each camera system performs a white balance correction process on a captured image then transmits the corrected image to participating users ([0016]).
In light of the teaching of Cross 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 apply the white balance adjustment method of Wang to a camera system that is part of a video conference, where the white balance of captured video is adjusted and the adjusted video is sent to other users participating in the conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Wang’s method in this way would confer the benefits of that method to a commonplace work activity, where high-quality images are essential.
As to claim 12, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image comprises identifying a light source by accessing a data storage location identifying light sources within an environment (see Wang, [0041], lines 1-3; {The examiner reads the inherent storage that stores the correspondence as the claimed data storage location.}).
As to claim 13, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image comprises identifying the light source illumination data that comprises characteristics of a light source (see Wang, [0039]).
As to claim 14, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 13, wherein the identifying the characteristics of the light source comprises accessing a data storage location (see Wang, [0041], lines 1-3) storing light sources and characteristics of the light sources and querying the data storage location for the light source identified (see Wang, [0041], lines 4-11).
As to claim 15, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image data comprises identifying a light source subsequent to querying a device operatively coupled to the color tone adjustment system ([0041], lines 4-11; {The claimed device is the inherent storage storing the correspondence.}).
As to claim 16, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image data comprises identifying, from the light source illumination data, an output color of a light source (see Wang, Fig. 1, step “S110,” “to obtain a color of the light source”).
As to claim 17, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to adjust comprises adjusting a value of a color of a portion of the image (see Wang, Fig. 1, step “S130”; “performing a white balance processsing;” {White balance inherently involves color adjustment.}).
Claims 2-7 are method claims reciting steps substantially similar to the processor
functions of claims 2-17. Therefore, claims 2-7 are rejected as detailed above.
As Wang discloses a product (Fig. 15, electronic device “100”) and a computer readable medium storing instructions executable to accomplish the processor functions of claim 1 (Fig. 15, memory “300”), which are the same as the steps of claim 20, the examiner submits that the combination of Wang and Cross et al. satisfies claim 20.
C. Claims 1,3,7,9,11,13,17,19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoi et al. (US 2019/0132563 A1) in view of Cross et al. (US 2012/0274724 A1)
As to claim 1, Kadoi et al. discloses a method (Fig. 1), the method comprising:
receiving, utilizing an image capture device (Fig. 1A, image sensor “102”) coupled to an information handling device employing a color tone adjustment system ((Fig. 1, CPU “103”)), an image of a scene ([0052], lines 1 and 2);
identifying, using the color tone adjustment system, a light source providing illumination within the image ([0061], lines 1-5); and
adjusting, using the color tone adjustment system, a color tone of the image based upon characteristics of the light source (Fig. 4; [0039]; [0105]; {The examiner reads the white balance coefficient(s) as the claimed characteristics.}), wherein the adjusting the color tone of the image comprises adjusting a value for a color for a portion of the image, wherein the adjusting the value for the color for the portion of the image comprises adjusting the portion of the image influenced by the light source providing illumination of the image (Fig. 4; [0039]; [0105]; {Note section IV(C) above as well.}).
The claim differs from Kadoi et al. in that it requires that the color tone adjustment of the image is performed after capture of the image by the image capture device but before the image is transferred to an image receipt location. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cross et al. discloses a videoconferencing system (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of camera systems that respectively capture video of a participating user and transmit the video to other users participating in the videoconference ([0015]). Each camera system includes a video camera (Fig. 1, video camera “18”) and information handling system (Fig. 1, information handling system “10”). The information handling system performs a white balance correction process on a captured image then transmits the corrected image to participating users ([0016]).
In light of the teaching of Cross 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 design the image capturing apparatus executing the white balance adjustment of Kadoi et al. for use in videoconferencing, where the white balance of captured video is adjusted and the adjusted video is sent to other users participating in the conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Kadoi’s apparatus and method in this way would confer the benefits of that system to a commonplace work activity, where high-quality images are essential. Also, by adjusting white balance at the image capture apparatus, the system can avoid transmission delays incurred when the image is transferred to a networked system for processing, like a cloud server.
As to claim 11, Kadoi et al. teaches an image capture device (Fig. 1A, image sensor “102”) configured to receive and process image data to adjust a value for a color for a portion of an image containing light source illumination data ([0061], lines 1-5) received by the image capture device (Fig. 4; [0039]; [0105]).
The claim differs from Kadoi et al. in that it requires that the image capture device be connectable to a system comprising a processor and memory operably connected to the processor. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cross et al. discloses a videoconferencing system (Fig. 1) comprising a plurality of camera systems that respectively capture video of a participating user and transmit the video to other users participating in the videoconference ([0015]). Each camera system includes a processor and memory connected to the processor (Fig. 1, CPU “12” and RAM “14”; [0015], lines 1-8; {The claimed system is another camera in the videoconferencing system including the CPU and RAM.}), and each camera system performs a white balance correction process on a captured image then transmits the corrected image to participating users ([0016]).
In light of the teaching of Cross 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 apply the white balance adjustment method of Kadoi et al. to a camera system that is part of a video conference, where the white balance of captured video is adjusted and the adjusted video is sent to other users participating in the conference. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that applying Kadoi’s method in this way would confer the benefits of that method to a commonplace work activity, where high-quality images are essential.
As to claim 13, Kadoi et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image data comprises identifying a light source that comprises characteristics of a light source (see Kadoi et al., Fig. 4; [0105]).
As to claim 17, Kadoi et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to adjust comprises adjusting a value of a color of a portion of the image (see Kadoi et al., [0039]; {White balance inherently involves color adjustment.}).
As to claim 19, Kadoi et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11, wherein to process the image data comprises identifying at least one light sources that controls an illumination within the scene by providing instructions to a controllable device (see Kadoi et al., Fig. 1, interactive light source “201”) to identify characteristics of an uncontrollable light source (see Kadoi et al., Fig. 1, non-interactive light source “202”) providing illumination within an image (see Kadoi et al., [0061], lines 1-5).
Claims 3,7, and 9 are method claims reciting steps substantially similar to the processor
functions of claims 13,17, and 19. Therefore, claims 3,7, and 9 are rejected as detailed above.
As Kadoi et al. discloses a product (Fig. 1, camera “100”) and a computer readable medium storing instructions executable to accomplish the processor functions of claim 1 (Fig. 1, primary storage device “104”), which are the same as the steps of claim 20, the examiner submits that the combination of Kadoi et al. and Cross et al. satisfies the limitations of claim 20.
D. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borremans et al. (US 2022/0003907 A1) in view of Cross et al. (US 2012/0274724 A1) and further in view of Mirzaei Domabi et al. (US 2020/0226720 A1)
As to claim 18, Borremans et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11. The claim differs from Borremans et al., as modified by Cross et al., in that it requires that to adjust comprises adjusting the value of a color of the image irrespective of values of other colors of an image. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Mirzaei Domabi et al. teaches a white balance correction method in which only a single color channel can be corrected ([0045], “…white balance gains for one or more channels…”). In light of the teaching of Mirzaei Domabi 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 design Borremans’s white balance correction to correct a single color channel for white balance as this would increase the speed of white balance processing.
Claim 8 is a method claim reciting a step substantially similar to the processor
function of claim 18. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as detailed above.
E. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 2019/0132563 A1) in view of Cross et al. (US 2012/0274724 A1) and further in view of Mirzaei Domabi et al. (US 2020/0226720 A1)
As to claim 18, Wang, as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11. The claim differs from Wang, as modified by Cross et al., in that it requires that to adjust comprises adjusting the value of a color of the image irrespective of values of other colors of an image. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Mirzaei Domabi et al. teaches a white balance correction method in which only a single color channel can be corrected ([0045], “…white balance gains for one or more channels…”). In light of the teaching of Mirzaei Domabi 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 design Wang’s white balance correction method to correct a single color channel for white balance as this would increase the speed of white balance processing.
Claim 8 is a method claim reciting a step substantially similar to the processor
function of claim 18. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as detailed above.
F. Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kadoi et al. (US 2019/0132563 A1) in view of Cross et al. (US 2012/0274724 A1) and further in view of Mirzaei Domabi et al. (US 2020/0226720 A1)
As to claim 18, Kadoi et al., as modified by Cross et al., teaches the system of claim 11. The claim differs from Kadoi et al., as modified by Cross et al., in that it requires that to adjust comprises adjusting the value of a color of the image irrespective of values of other colors of an image. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Mirzaei Domabi et al. teaches a white balance correction method in which only a single color channel can be corrected ([0045], “…white balance gains for one or more channels…”). In light of the teaching of Mirzaei Domabi 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 design Kadoi’s white balance correction method to correct a single color channel for white balance as this would increase the speed of white balance processing.
Claim 8 is a method claim reciting a step substantially similar to the processor
function of claim 18. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected as detailed above.
VIII. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Taylor et al. (US 2024/0196104 A1) teaches a white balance method where processing logic may perform a spatially variant white balancing technique. The logic, for example, may segment an image into different regions, each of which may be affected by different lighting conditions (e.g., illuminated by a different light source). That is, the pixels within each region may have a different color cast on account of different lighting conditions. An image, for example, may capture a scene containing multiple light sources (e.g., interior lighting within a house, exterior lighting through street lamps, etc.), with no single light source dominating the image. In such cases, the logic may be used to segment the image into different regions, which may be separately white balanced. The logic estimates an illuminant color for each region, uses the estimated illuminant colors to determine a set of corrective gains for each region, and applies the corrective gains to each region to white balance the image.
IX. 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 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
3/21/2026