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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 20 is signal/carrier wave. Claim 20 is directed to a computer-readable medium. Par. [0125] addresses what that means and it includes transmission media ("the functions may be stored on or transmitted over, as one or more instructions or code, a computer-readable medium") and while the medium is described as possibly being storage media and non-transitory, these are only possible embodiments ("Computer-readable media may include computer-readable storage media, which corresponds to a tangible medium such as data storage media. In this manner, computer-readable media generally may correspond to tangible computer-readable storage media which is non-transitory").
Par. [0126] explicitly excludes carrier waves from possible embodiments for storage media, but the claim is not limited to storage media, which, as discussed above, is only one possible embodiment for "computer-readable medium" in the claim.
Applicant does not limit computer-readable medium to non-transitory embodiments, and therefore claim 20 is rejected as directed to scope that includes subject matter not eligible for patents.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1, 12 and 20 recite receive a first image, generate at least one reduced image from the first image and generate an HDR image by selectively combining information from at least two of the first image, the second image and the at least one reduced image.
The limitation receive a first image, is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation performed in the mind. The limitation generating at least one reduce image from the first image, is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation mathematical manipulation of image data (reducing an image). The limitation of and generate an HDR image by selectively combining information from at least two of the first image, the second image and the at least one reduced image, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation mathematical manipulation. This is simply subtracting numbers from other numbers (that is what the difference between two images is) and then combining the difference with one of the original set of numbers, mathematically, and the only thing preventing a human doing it is simply time if images are complex, but the claims are not directly aimed at complex images. Limitation components mental process and mathematical concepts falls within grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because while the Applicant recites a low power HDR mode, this merely designates an environment in which the image manipulation occurs, and the performance of the technique is not dependent on the machine operating on a low power mode, it is equivalently operable in any sort of machine whether power limited or not, and this could be considered merely a limitation of field of endeavor, because while the method is described as particularly useful in low power processing, it is equally useful in full power processing, and further, Applicant never describes what minimizing power consumption means (which could be merely performing the method while a display is under low illumination in a mobile phone, for example).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of while operating in a low power high dynamic range (HDR) mode to no more than mere instructions to field of endeavor. Mere instructions to field of endeavor cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-11 and 13-19 depends on claims 1 and 12, respectively. The dependent claims do not change the analysis. Masking is merely generating data indicating what values of an image are used in combination or not. ERC is merely the addition of an offset to an image (again just adding a number to other numbers).
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-12, 14-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valente et al (12,437,445) in view of McElvain et al (11,258,957) .
Regarding claims 1, 12 and 20 Valente discloses
while operating in a low power (note fig. 5, block 550 and col. 13 lines 60- col. 14 lines 12, any power interface can be used) high dynamic range (HDR) mode (note fig. 7 block 712 HDR application module):
Receive a first image having a first exposure time (note fig. 7, block 710, long exposure image) and a second image having a second exposure time (note fig. 7 block 706 short exposure image), wherein the first exposure time is longer than the second exposure time (note col. 24 lines 14-24, exposure duration of the long-exposure image 710 is longer than the exposure duration of the short-exposure image);
Generate an HDR image by selectively combining information from at least two of the first image, the second image and the at least one reduced image (note col. 21 lines 6-8, lines cite, generate, combined image data, such as a high dynamic range image and fig. 7 block 714 output image from HDR application and col. 25 lines 25-30, cites fusion operation and combination short exposure image and long exposure image). Valente discloses combining and fusing image. Valente does not clearly disclose Generate at least one reduced image from the first image or the second image. McElvain discloses generate at least one reduced image from the first image or the second image (note fig. 5 block 520 and col. 9 lines 21-31, removing pixels from long exposure or short exposure image reduces the image). Valente and McElvain are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to
generate reduced image from the first image or the second image in the system of Valente as evidenced by McElvain. The suggestion/motivation for doing so may eliminate motion artifacts in HDR images (note col. 2 lines 4-10). It would have been obvious to combine McElvain with Valente to obtain the invention as specified by claims 1, 12 and 20.
Regarding claims 3 and 14 Valente and McElvain discloses,
Apply a mask to the first image to generate a masked first image, wherein the masked first image is the at least one reduced image (note McElvain, col. 18 lines 33-40, mask removes pixels in first image).
Regarding claims 4 and 15 Valente and McElvain discloses,
Apply a mask to the second image to generate a masked second image, wherein the masked second image is the at least one reduced image (note McElvain col. 18 lines 33-40, mask removes pixels in second image).
Regarding claims 5 and 16 Valente and McElvain discloses,
Apply a mask to the first image to generate a masked first image and apply the mask to the second image to generate a masked second image, wherein the masked first image and the masked second image are the at least one reduced image (note McElvain col. 18 lines 33-40).
Regarding claims 9 Valente and McElvain discloses,
Generate the HDR image are further configured to: reconstruct the at least one reduced image to generate a reconstructed image (note Valente col. 28 lines 54-56, binning used to reconstruct short and long exposure; and
Generate the HDR image using the reconstructed image (note Valente col. 28 lines 57-67).
Regarding claim 10 Valente and McElvain discloses,
Generate a blending map comprising a grayscale image having a plurality of pixels, wherein a value of each of the plurality of pixels determines a contribution of the corresponding pixel to the generated HDR image (note Valente, col. 21 lines 6-8, lines cite, generate, combined image data, such as a high dynamic range image and fig. 7 block 714 output image from HDR application and col. 25 lines 25-30, cites fusion operation and combination short exposure image and long exposure image).
Regarding claim 11 Valente and McElvain discloses,
Generate the HDR image by selectively combining information from at least two of the first image, the second image and the delta image using the blending map as a mask (note Valente, col. 21 lines 6-8, lines cite, generate, combined image data, such as a high dynamic range image and fig. 7 block 714 output image from HDR application and col. 25 lines 25-30, cites fusion operation and combination short exposure image and long exposure image).
Claims 2, 6-8, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Valente and McElvain as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Fujinami et al (10,750,098).
Regarding claims 2 and 13 Valente and McElvain discloses long exposure image and short exposure image. Valente and McElvain does not clearly disclose generating a delta image comprising a difference between the first image and the second image, wherein the delta image is the at least one reduced image. Fujinami discloses generating a difference between long exposure image and short exposure image (note fig. 1, subtractor 111 in block 110 and col. 6 line 7-23, subtractor computes difference between long exposure image and corrected short exposure image). Valente, McElvain and Fujimani are combinable because they are from the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include generating a difference between long exposure image and short exposure image in the system of Valente and McElvain as evidenced by Fujimani. The suggestion/motivation for doing so correct blurring and expands dynamic range (note col. 1 lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to combine Fujimani with Valente and McElvain to obtain the invention as specified by claims 2 and 13.
Regarding claims 6 and 17 Valente, McElvain and Fujimani discloses,
Wherein the first image comprises a long exposure image and the second image comprises a short exposure image (Valente note fig. 7 block 710 long exposure image and block 706 short exposure image).
Regarding claims 7 and 18 Valente, McElvain and Fujimani discloses,
Apply an ERC (Exposure Range Correction) gain to the short exposure image prior to generating the delta image to amplify a signal of the short exposure image (note col. 17 lines 57-65, cites correction, generating scaling of images).
Regarding claims 8 and 19 Valente, McElvain and Fujimani,
Generate the HDR image by selectively combining information from the long exposure image and the delta image (note Valente, col. 21 lines 6-8, lines cite, generate, combined image data, such as a high dynamic range image and fig. 7 block 714 output image from HDR application and col. 25 lines 25-30, cites fusion operation and combination short exposure image and long exposure image)
Related Prior Art
Tico et al (9,344,636) generate a delta image comprising a difference between the first image and the second image (note fig. 2, block 215, difference map and col. 4 lines 10-25).
Yamamoto (11,514,598) Receive a first image having a first exposure time (note fig. 1, block 31, long exposure image) and a second image having a second exposure time (note fig. 1 block 32 short exposure image).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY M DESIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-7449. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6:30am-3:00pm.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
G.D.
February 18, 2026
/GREGORY M DESIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676