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. Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
III. Claim Interpretation
A. “Image processor unit” of claims 13 and 14 does not invoke interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claims 13 and 14 recite an image processor unit that performs an image data processing and gain factor multiplication functions. Although the limitation recites a generic placeholder (unit) that is followed by an associated function, the generic placeholder is modified by “image processor,” which the examiner submits is a structural element capable of performing the image data processing and gain factor multiplication functions.
B. Interpretation of “calibrating the gain factors assigned to the pixel positions of the gain grid on the flat-field reference image” of claim 2. After reviewing the specification, the examiner has been unable to specifically identify a process associated with the calibration of claim 2. However, as the flat-field reference image would suggest, the examiner’s guess is that the gain factors are calibrated by adjusting for shading/vignetting, which is how the claim will be interpreted.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 2 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
A. Claims 2,13, and 14: lack of antecedent basis
Claim 2 recites “the gain grid” and “the flat-field reference image,” which lack antecedent basis in the claim. The specification appears to refer to “gain grid” synonymously with “gain matrix.” The examiner would suggest a corresponding amendment and would suggest amending “the flat-field reference image” to “a flat-field reference image.“ Claim 13 recites “the gain matrices” on lines 7 and 8, which lacks antecedent basis in the claim. The claim has only established basis for a single gain matrix and has not established that that single gain matrix encompasses multiple gain matrices. Claim 14 is rejected as indefinite because it depends on claim 13 and fails to remedy its indefiniteness.
B. Claims 8-14: limitations from mutually exclusive embodiments
Claim 8 recites interpolating a gain matrix, and claim 9 recites determining gain factors based on a determined local colour. Claim 1, however, recites that the gain factors are pre-defined in a stored gain matrix and that the gain matrix is used to multiply each pixel of the frame by a respective gain factor of the gain matrix. That is, claims 8 and 9 appear to recite mutually exclusive limitations. The specification does not disclose that the interpolated matrix and gain factors determined based on the determined local colour are stored or pre-defined. Therefore, claims 8 and 9 are ambiguous as to the embodiment that Applicant seeks to cover. Claim 13 suggests a similar mix of mutually exclusive features by reciting “a gain matrix” and “gain matrices.” Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected as indefinite because they depend on claim 9 or claim 13 and fail to remedy their indefiniteness. Also, claims 8-14 will not receive a prior art rejection in this Office action.
V. 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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer program per se, which the Office recognizes as an ineligible category of invention. Pursuant to MPEP 2106.03, “[n]on-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include…[p]roducts that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as “data per se”) or a computer program per se (often referred to as “software per se”) when claimed as a product without any structural recitations.” The examiner notes that the computer program is embodied on a medium in claim 13. However, that medium is not a structural element of the program itself. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests the following amendment:
15. (Currently Amended) A comprising a computer program, the computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a processing unit, cause[[s]] the processing unit to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1.
VI. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1,3-7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Proca (US 2012/0092520 A1).
As to claim 1, Proca teaches a method for processing of image data (e.g., Fig. 5) provided by an image sensor (Fig. 1, image sensor “100”), wherein the image data comprises a frame formed by an array of pixels (Fig. 2; [0021], lines 1-3), said pixel array being overlaid by a colour filter array so that the pixels represent colour information according to a specific colour pattern defined by the colour filter array ([0021], lines 1-3), the method comprising:
-multiplying each pixel of the frame by a respective gain factor pre-defined in a stored gain
matrix for a pixel position which corresponds to the pixel in the frame when the gain matrix is positioned on the frame ([0037], Equation (ii), “CGG•P601”; [0040], Equation (iii), “CGG•P611”; [0042], Equation (iv), “CRR•P621”; [0044], Equation (v), “CBB•P631”; {The coefficients, CGG (x2), CRR, and CBB, can be construed as any matrix of four elements (i.e., 4x1, 1x4, or 2x2). Note that the examiner does not read the 3x3 cross-talk filter as the gain matrix.}),
-wherein the gain matrix is smaller than the frame and is placed in a plurality of different
positions on the frame to multiply each pixel of the frame by a respective gain factor of the gain matrix ([0049]; {As seen in equations (ii)-(v) and Fig. 2, the coefficients, CGG (x2), CRR, and CBB, are respectively applied to four pixels, which is smaller than an image frame (Fig. 2), and repeatedly and respectively applied to all pixels of an image.}).
As to claim 3, Proca teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the size of the gain matrix is the size of the colour filter array pattern, which is repeated to form the colour filter array of the size of the frame (Figs. 2 and 6A-6D; {The coefficients, which are a four-element “matrix,” are applied to a four-element pixel pattern (i.e., 2G, R, and B)).
As to claim 4, Proca teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising periodically repeated positioning of the gain matrix on the frame such that a colour pattern of the frame matches a colour pattern assigned to the gain factors in the gain matrix, and multiplying each pixel of the frame by a respective gain factor of the periodically repeated gain matrix (Figs. 6A-6D; Equations (ii)-(v)).
As to claim 5, Proca teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising providing a set of different gain matrices, wherein each gain matrix is assigned to a respective position of the gain matrix on a frame for multiplying each pixel of the frame by a respective gain factor for the pixel position of the overlaid related gain matrix (Figs. 6A-6C; {The different matrices can be read as a group of CGG coefficients, a group CRR coefficients, and a group of CBB coefficients applied to respective red, green, and blue pixels at different locations in the image.}).
As to claim 6, Proca teaches the method according to claim 5, further comprising allocating a selected gain matrix to a related support point in the frame, wherein a support point in a defined support pixel position of the selected gain matrix matches the pixel position of the support point in the frame in order to assign the gain factor for the pixel positions of the selected gain matrix to a respective pixel of the frame and to multiply the pixel value by the related gain factor (Figs. 6A-6D; {The support point can be read as any location of a red, green, or blue pixel.}).
As to claim 7, Proca teaches the method according to claim 6, further comprising providing one specific gain matrix for each support point in the frame (See the examiner’s comment in the rejection of claim 5 above.}).
As to claim 15, Proca teaches a computer program embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the computer program comprising instructions which, when the computer program is executed by a processing unit ([0036], lines 1-6), causes the processing unit to carry out the steps of the method of claim 1 ([0051], lines 6-11).
VII. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Proca (US 2012/0092520 A1) in view of Jang et al. (US 2023/0247318 A1).
As to claim 2, Proca teaches the method according to claim 1. The claim differs from Proca in that it further requires the step of calibrating the gain factors assigned to the pixel positions of the gainmatrix ona flat-field reference image. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Jang et al. teaches an imaging system (Fig. 1, system “10”) comprising an image sensor (Fig. 1, image sensor “100”) that outputs color image data to an image processor (Fig. 1, image processing apparatus) for cross-talk compensation and shading correction ([0030]). In light of the teaching of Jang 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 include a shading correction module in Proca’s system that adjusts the cross-talk coefficients based on the shading profile of the optical system because this would compensate for brightness degradation at the periphery of the captured image.
VIII. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Lee et al. (US 2023/0412939 A1) and Luo (US # 7,561,194 B1) disclose additional examples of gain multiplication on pixel signals to reduce crosstalk.
IX. Conclusion
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
10/21/2025