Applicant’s 06/04/2026 response has been considered. The previous objections to the drawings, specification, and claims have been overcome. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claim 9 has also been withdrawn.
The previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1-7 and 9 have also been overcome by applicant’s claim amendments.
However, note that independent claim 8 remains original (i.e. unamended).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112734719A, hereinafter “CN’719” in view of US 2017/0160127 to Salisbury et al. Note that all citations to CN’719 are based upon the supplied English translation of CN’719.
As per claim 8, CN’719 discloses on page 3 a defective pixel correction device, characterized by comprising an acquisition module that acquires an initial image generated by an infrared imaging device if the infrared imaging device is detected to meet a preset trigger condition (page 3 - acquiring a first image via a CCD or CMOS imaging sensor but CN’719 fails to disclose the triggering condition for IR capture); a preliminary determination module for determining whether each point in the initial image is a possible defective pixel according to a preset defective pixel determination feature (page 3, obtaining the contrast of the N units of the first image and storing in the first memory while performing suspected bad pixel detection on the N units of the first image to obtain a set of first image suspected pixel coordinates and subsequently storing these in a second memory); a first table for summarizing all the possible defective pixels in the initial image to obtain a first possible defective pixel table (page 3, first pixel table (coordinates) stored in the second memory); an overlapping module to determine the overlapping area of two consecutive image frames in real time (page 3, acquiring a second image being taken after the first image and comparing pixel locations of the first image with corresponding pixel locations (overlap) of the second image); a second table for determining the possible defective pixels located in the overlapping area in a latter frame of the two consecutive image frames (page 3, take absolute value of the difference between the contrast values in the first memory vs the second image), and form a second possible defective pixel table (page 3, if absolute value is greater than a threshold); determining a non-repetition part of the possible defective pixels in the overlapping area in the latter image frame in the current first possible defective pixel table and the second possible defective pixel table (page 3, determining the intersection of the coordinates of the suspected bad pixels in the second image corresponding to the suspected defective pixels in the second memory); after the non-repetition part is eliminated from the first possible defective pixel table (page 3, per the threshold, the contrast values of the first memory are replaced (i.e. eliminated) with the contrast of the second image), obtaining an updated first possible defective pixel table and iteratively repeating to obtain a final first possible defective pixel table (page 3, the images subsequent to the second image are sequentially detected to obtain the coordinate set of the dead pixels); and a correction module for performing defective pixel correction on the basis of the final first possible defective pixel table (bottom of page 3, performing a repair operation).
As noted above, CN’719 fails to disclose an IR sensor where motion of the IR sensor is monitored, and motion of the IR sensor beyond a threshold triggers the capture of the first image and subsequent pixel detection method.
However, in the same field of endeavor as CN’719, Salisbury et al discloses a defective pixel detection method for IR sensors that monitors the motion of the IR sensor and triggers the defective pixel algorithm if a motion threshold is exceeded, see Salisbury et al, [0006] - [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the image sensor of CN’719 with IR capability while also initiating the defective pixel evaluation only after motion of the sensor exceeds a threshold as taught by Salisbury et al. The rationale being that an IR sensor permits capture of images in very low light situations which is very challenging for visible light sensors, while the motion monitoring of the sensor and only permitting defective pixel evaluation after a motion threshold has been exceeded reduces the amount of processing resources and obtains defective pixel locations more rapidly, see Salisbury et al [0007].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5, 7 and 9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant’s amendment to claim 1, and subsequent comments on pages 8-11 are found persuasive by the examiner. Therefore, applicant’s remarks on pages 8-11 are adopted by the examiner as the reasons for allowance of claims 1-5, 7 and 9.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID OMETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8am-4pm.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-3638. 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.
DAVID OMETZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2672
/DAVID OMETZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights