Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgements
2. The Applicant’s “Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment”, dated 04/06/2026, are acknowledged. Amended claims 21, 29, and 37 are acknowledged. Claims 21-40 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of independent claims 21, 29, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2017/0315062 A1).
4. Applicant argues (see pg. 7), “Scepanovic does not teach emitting light with only a subset of emitters when a target field of view corresponds to one camera, and all of the emitters when a target field of view correspond to a second camera.
However, Matsuda teaches a system including an illumination device and an imaging device of synchronized operation ([0035]; wherein [0017] teaches light emitters L1-L8 (L-group), M1-M8 (M-group), and H1-H4 (H-group). Further, Matsuda in [0023], teaches a mode of operation in which only blue light emitting emitters from the different lighting groups are used.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different wavelength lights in accordance with synchronized image capturing can be used to perform color defect detection as taught by Matsuda.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 is in compliance
with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being
considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
7. Claims 21-24, 29-32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scepanovic et al. (US 2018/0288295 A1) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2017/0315062 A1).
8. Regarding claim 21, claim 21 is rejected for reasons related to claim 29 (see below for
claim 29).
9. Regarding claim 22, claim 22 is rejected for reasons related to claim 30 (see below for
claim 30).
10. Regarding claim 23, claim 23 is rejected for reasons related to claim 31 (see below for
claim 31).
11. Regarding claim 24, claim 23 is rejected for reasons related to claim 32 (see below for
claim 32).
12. Regarding claim 29, a system for illuminating a scene during an image capture
(…wherein Scepanovic, in [0057-58], teaches an electronic device including an adjustably
controllable light module and also including a camera module…) comprising:
an adaptive light source module (…Scepanovic, in [0064], teaches lighting module
206…) comprising
a plurality of emitters (…wherein [0094] teaches that the light source can include
any light beam emitters…);
a first camera; a second camera (…wherein [0088] teaches camera modules 602 A-
B; Fig. 6A…); and
a processor (…wherein [0007] teaches a processor…) configured to:
determine a target field of view of the scene (…wherein [0007] also teaches that the
processor can, in response to a command to the camera modules, capture separate
images of a common subject, initially controllably adjust the collimator actuator, based
on a camera field of view…);
determine an illumination profile based at least in part on the determined target field of
view (…wherein [0007] further teaches that the processor can controllably adjust a
collimator actuator based upon identifying a subject within an image, captured by the
camera module, of the camera field of view.…);
drive the adaptive light source module to illuminate the scene according to the
determined illumination profile using the adaptive light source module (…wherein [0007]
teaches that the processor can controllably adjust the light output of the light source,
based at least in part upon the illumination field of view…),
wherein illuminating the scene comprises:
generating light with all of the plurality of emitters when the determined target field of
view is a second field of view corresponding to the second camera (…wherein [0087-0088]
teaches a camera which can capture a wide-angle image of a particular subject located
within scene and accordingly the lighting module can adjustably direct a collimated light
beam in accordance the field of view of the camera…); and
capture an image of the determined target field of view while illuminating the scene
(…wherein [0007] teaches that each camera module can capture an image of respective
field of views to the cameras, wherein a processor controls to adjust a light output of a
light source based on an illumination field of view…); and
generating light with only a first subset of the plurality of emitters when the determined target field of view is a first field of view corresponding to the first camera (…Scepanovic [0087-0088] teach a camera which can capture a narrow-angle image of a particular subject located within a scene and accordingly the lighting module can adjustably direct a collimated light beam in accordance the field of view of the camera; wherein as stated in [0099] a lighting module comprises a set of multiple light sources which can be separately and independently controlled;
Matsuda further teaches a system including an illumination device and an imaging device of synchronized operation ([0035]; wherein [0017] teaches light emitters L1-L8 (L-group), M1-M8 (M-group), and H1-H4 (H-group). Further, Matsuda in [0023], teaches a mode of operation in which only blue light emitting emitters from the different lighting groups are used.
Though Scepanovic and Matsuda teach varying embodiments of imaging and lighting system, it is nevertheless noted that each system can be implemented interchangeably in a corresponding form factor that is accommodating to each system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different wavelength lights in accordance with synchronized image capturing can be used to perform color defect detection as taught by Matsuda…).
13. Regarding claim 30, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda teaches the system of claim 29 (see claim 29 above),wherein
the first subset of the plurality of emitters comprises
a first emitter (…wherein [0161] teaches separate light sources included in a
lighting module including a set of partially independently controllable light sources…), and wherein
generating light with the first emitter fills the first field of view (…wherein [0087-
0088] teach a camera which captures a narrow-angle image of a particular subject
located within scene and accordingly the lighting module can adjustably direct a
collimated light beam in accordance the field of view of the camera above; for example,
with regards to Fig. 3C, [0072] teaches a limited region of field 334 is illuminated…).
14. Regarding claim 31, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda teaches the system of claim 30 (see claim 30 above),
wherein
generating light with all of the plurality of emitters fills the second field of view (…with
regards to Fig. 3A, Scepanovic, in [0069], teaches wherein a camera module is focused
on scene 310; wherein the lighting module is accordingly adjusted to illuminate a wider
field of view. Generally, Scepanovic teaches light sources that puts out a light beam in
accordance with the field of view of the camera; wherein the feature of additionally
controlling independent light sources is an option; hence this can read on using all
emitters to illuminate a scene…).
15. Regarding claim 32, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda teaches the system of claim 29 (see claim 29 above), wherein
the second field of view is larger than the first field of view (…wherein Scepanovic
teaches a field of view 324, which is larger than field of view 334; in accordance with
figures 3A and 3C…).
16. Regarding claim 37, a device (…wherein Scepanovic teaches device 100 in [0058]…)
comprising:
a processor (…wherein [0007] teaches a processor…); and
memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor (… [0177] teaches
memory 1602 wherein one or more processors run software programs stored in memory
1602…), cause the device to:
determine a target field of view of a scene (…wherein [0007] also teaches that the
processor can, in response to a command to the camera modules, capture separate
images of a common subject, initially controllably adjust the collimator actuator, based
on a camera field of view…);
determine an illumination profile based at least in part on the determined target field of
view (…wherein [0007] further teaches that the processor can controllably adjust a
collimator actuator based upon identifying a subject within an image, captured by the
camera module, of the camera field of view.…);
control an adaptive light source module to illuminate the scene according to the
determined illumination profile using the adaptive light source module (…wherein [0007]
teaches that the processor can controllably adjust the light output of the light source,
based at least in part upon the illumination field of view…), wherein
illuminating the scene comprises:
generating light with all of the plurality of emitters when the determined target field of
view is a second field of view corresponding to a second camera (…wherein [0087-0088]
teaches a camera which can capture a wide-angle image of a particular subject located
within scene and accordingly the lighting module can adjustably direct a collimated light
beam in accordance the field of view of the camera…); and
control at least one of the first camera or the second camera to capture an image of the
determined target field of view while illuminating the scene (…wherein [0007] teaches that
each camera module can capture an image of respective field of views to the cameras,
wherein a processor controls to adjust a light output of a light source based on an
illumination field of view…);
generating light with only a first subset of a plurality of emitters of the adaptive light source module when the determined target field of view is a first field of view corresponding to a first camera (…Scepanovic [0087-0088] teach a camera which can capture a narrow-angle image of a particular subject located within a scene and accordingly the lighting module can adjustably direct a collimated light beam in accordance the field of view of the camera; wherein as stated in [0099] a lighting module comprises a set of multiple light sources which can be separately and independently controlled;
Matsuda further teaches a system including an illumination device and an imaging device of synchronized operation ([0035]; wherein [0017] teaches light emitters L1-L8 (L-group), M1-M8 (M-group), and H1-H4 (H-group). Further, Matsuda in [0023], teaches a mode of operation in which only blue light emitting emitters from the different lighting groups are used.
Though Scepanovic and Matsuda teach varying embodiments of imaging and lighting system, it is nevertheless noted that each system can be implemented interchangeably in a corresponding form factor that is accommodating to each system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different wavelength lights in accordance with synchronized image capturing can be used to perform color defect detection as taught by Matsuda…).
17. Claims 25-28, 33-36, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Scepanovic et al. (US 2018/0288295 A1; further referred to as Scepanovic) in view of Matsuda et al. (US 2017/0315062 A1) and Yoshida et al. (US 2022/0252238 A1).
18. Regarding claim 25, claim 25 is rejected for reasons related to claim 33 (see
claim 33 below).
19. Regarding claim 26, claim 26 is rejected for reasons related to claim 34 (see
claim 34 below).
20. Regarding claim 27, claim 27 is rejected for reasons related to claim 35 (see
claim 35 below).
21. Regarding claim 28, claim 28 is rejected for reasons related to claim 36 (see
claim 36 below).
22. Regarding claim 33, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda teaches the system of claim 29 (see claim 29 above).
However, the combined reference doesn’t further teach wherein
the first subset of the plurality of emitters comprises at least one central emitter
(…however, Yoshida teaches a light source including a plurality of independently
operable light emitting devices which may be employed in a camera; wherein [0040] in
accordance with Fig. 3 teaches emitting devices 1a-1i; as such, device 1e may be viewed
as a central emitter.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device, as taught by
Yoshida, could have been implemented in the teaching of Scepanovic whereby different lighting elements can selectively be chosen from an array of emitters so to illuminate a
field of view of a camera to varying degree of a scene…).
23. Regarding claim 34, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda and Yoshida teaches the system of claim 33 (see claim 33 above), wherein
the at least one central emitter comprises
a plurality of central emitters (…wherein Yoshida, in [0043], further teaches that a
plurality of light emitting elements may be integrated as a single light emitting device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device, as taught by
Yoshida, could have been implemented in the teaching of Scepanovic whereby different
lighting elements can selectively be chosen from an array of emitters so to illuminate a
field of view of a camera to varying degree of a scene…), wherein
light collectively generated by the plurality of central emitters fills the first field of view
(…wherein [0087-0088] (Scepanovic) teach a camera which captures a narrow-angle
image of a particular subject located within scene and accordingly the lighting module
can adjustably direct a collimated light beam in accordance the field of view of the
camera above; for example, with regards to Fig. 3C, [0072] teaches a limited region of
field 334 is illuminated…).
24. Regarding claim 35, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda teaches the system of claim 29 (see claim 29 above).
Though Scepanovic, in [0099], teaches a light sources in a light module comprising a set of multiple light sources which be separately and independently controlled, the reference may not specify wherein
the plurality of emitters comprise a plurality of peripheral emitters that surround the first
subset of the plurality of emitters (…however, Yoshida teaches a plurality independently operable light emitting devices 1a-1i in [0040], with reference to Fig. 3, wherein emitting
device 1e (e.g.), which may be made up of a plurality of light emitting elements, is
surrounded by other light emitting devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device, as taught by
Yoshida, could have been implemented in the teaching of Scepanovic whereby different
lighting elements can selectively be chosen from an array of emitters so to illuminate a
field of view of a camera to varying degree of a scene…).
25. Regarding claim 36, Scepanovic in view of Matsuda and Yoshida teaches the system of claim 35 (see claim 35 above), wherein
light collectively generated by the plurality of peripheral emitters and the first subset of
the plurality of emitters fills the second field of view (…wherein Scepanovic teaches a field of
view that may be illuminated in accordance with Fig. 3A, wherein [0068] teaches the
dynamic adjustment of a light beam in accordance with field of view 324; Yoshida, in
[0108] further and explicitly teaches an example wherein all light emitting devices are lit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention that a light emitting device, as taught by
Yoshida, could have been implemented in the teaching of Scepanovic whereby different
lighting elements can selectively be chosen from an array of emitters so to illuminate a
field of view of a camera to varying degree of a scene…).
26. Regarding claim 38, claim 38 is rejected for reasons related to claim 30 (see above for
claim 30).
27. Regarding claim 39, claim 39 is rejected for reasons related to claim 36 (see above for
claim 36).
28. Regarding claim 40, claim 40 is rejected for reasons related to claim 32 (see above for
claim 32).
Conclusion
29. 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 SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights