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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the examiner failed to teach determining an updated lens shading correction because “the Office fails to provide any rationale as to what parameter in [0057] is alleged to be the lens shading correction” (page 12 of Remarks). However, the Examine respectfully disagrees with this conclusion. As stated in the rejection, paragraph 57 teaches determining updated color shading parameters, thus color shading parameters corresponds to the claimed lens shading correction. This is further supported by paragraph 56 which states “ the color shading correction table also referred to as a gain table that is used by the lens shading correction update circuit 414 (also referred to as an image correction circuit) which provides a block wise table containing the appropriate gains to correct for the color lens shading”. Therefore, it is clear that the color shading parameters are a lens shading correction since they are used “to correct for color lens shading”. Paragraph 57 further teaches using image statistics such as the low frequency parts to determine the color shading parameters which as shown in figure 4 are input to the LSC update to update the current shading parameters. This is further supported by 56 which teaches that these parameters as used to update current parameters.
In view of the foregoing, the examiner is not persuaded by applicant’s argument and the rejections are maintained as detailed below.
Applicant argues that the remaining rejected claims are allowable due to their dependence on claim 1. In view of the rejection of claim 1 being maintained, the rejections of the dependent claims are also maintained as further detailed below.
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, 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pan (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0070417).
Regarding claim 1, Pan discloses a method, comprising: determining first image statistics for first image data representing a first scene captured at a first aperture (paragraph 53 discloses determining the hue flatness of the image based on the hue gradient of each block of the image, it is apparent that a lens is captured with an aperture); determining whether the first image data satisfies a first criteria (paragraph 55 discloses comparing flatness values to a threshold and marking areas of the image as hue flat when the threshold is met); and when the first image data satisfies the first criteria: determining an updated lens shading correction (LSC) corresponding to the first aperture based on the first image statistics and on a current LSC corresponding to the first aperture (paragraph 57 teaches determining updated color shading parameters); and determining a first output image frame based on the updated LSC and the first image data (paragraph 38 teaches determining an image for display output based on the updated LSC data and the image data).
Regarding claim 11, Pan discloses an apparatus, comprising: a memory storing processor-readable code; and at least one processor coupled to the memory (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program), the at least one processor configured to execute the processor-readable code to cause the at least one processor to perform operations including: determining first image statistics for first image data representing a first scene captured at a first aperture (paragraph 53 discloses determining the hue flatness of the image based on the hue gradient of each block of the image, it is apparent that a lens is captured with an aperture); determining whether the first image data satisfies a first criteria (paragraph 55 discloses comparing flatness values to a threshold and marking areas of the image as hue flat when the threshold is met); and when the first image data satisfies the first criteria: determining an updated lens shading correction (LSC) corresponding to the first aperture based on the first image statistics and on a current LSC corresponding to the first aperture (paragraph 57 teaches determining updated color shading parameters); and determining a first output image frame based on the updated LSC and the first image data (paragraph 38 teaches determining an image for display output based on the updated LSC data and the image data).
Claim 21, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 11 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
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 2, 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2015/0130972), hereinafter referenced as Liu.
Regarding claim 2, Pan discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: storing the updated LSC as the current LSC corresponding to the first aperture (figure 4 exhibits table 413 in which the updated correction data is stored as disclosed at paragraph 56). However, Pan fails to disclose determining second image statistics for second image data representing a second scene captured at the first aperture; and determining a second output image frame based on the updated LSC and the second image data.
Liu is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Liu teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that images are properly compensated for lens shading would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Liu’s known principal of determining second image statistics for second image data representing a second scene captured at the first aperture (figure 4 exhibits step 414 in which second image statistics related to residual shading are estimated for a second image when step 414 is carried out a second time as disclosed at paragraph 30); and determining a second output image frame based on the updated LSC and the second image data (figure 4 exhibits wherein if the variance is not too large in step 414, then the second image is corrected with the same lens profile used for the prior image as disclosed at paragraph 31).
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that images are properly compensated for lens shading one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is an apparatus variant of claim 2 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 2.
Claim 22, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 12 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claims 3, 13 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Wang (Chinese Patent Publication 109413336). All text citations for Wang correspond to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 3, Pan in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 2, wherein storing the updated LSC as the current LSC is based on blending the updated LSC with the current LSC based on a reliability of the first image statistics.
Wang is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wang teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of preventing sudden changes in brightness in corrected portions of the image would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Wang’s known principal of updating a parameter using an average of the prior setting and a current setting (paragraph 7 of page 8 teaches updating exposure parameters by averaging current and prior exposure parameters).
In view of the motivations such as preventing sudden changes in brightness in corrected portions of the image one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 is an apparatus variant of claim 3 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 3.
Claim 23, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 13 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claims 4, 14, 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Wang et al. (WIPO Publication 2019/071613). All text citations for Wang et al. correspond to the attached translation.
Regarding claim 4, Pan in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 1, however, Pan fails to disclose wherein determining whether the first image data satisfies the first criteria comprises determining whether motion exists in the first scene.
Wang et al. is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Wang et al. teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of preventing unnecessary processing when an image is stable and parameters can be reused would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Wang et al.’s known principal of determining if motion exists in a scene and updating a parameter based on the presence of motion (page 13 second to last paragraph teaches updating parameters if a motion threshold is exceeded).
In view of the motivations such as preventing unnecessary processing when an image is stable and parameters can be reused one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 14 is an apparatus variant of claim 4 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 4.
Claim 24, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 14 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claims 5, 15, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Tokunaga et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0026346), hereinafter referenced as Tokunaga.
Regarding claim 5, Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Wang discloses the method of claim 4, wherein determining whether motion exists in the first scene comprises determining a difference in the first image statistics between neighboring portions of the first image data.
Tokunaga is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Tokunaga teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of accurately detecting global motion when different local motions are present would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Tokunaga’s known principal of comparing motion vectors of neighboring blocks in an image to determine local and global motion (paragraph 28 teaches clustering similar motion vectors of neighboring blocks and using the information to determine global and local motion in an image).
In view of the motivations such as accurately detecting global motion when different local motions are present one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 15 is an apparatus variant of claim 5 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 5.
Claim 25, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 15 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claims 7, 17 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Sato et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0199327), hereinafter referenced as Sato.
Regarding claim 7, Pan in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 1, however, Pan fails to disclose determining a change in aperture for a first camera from a second aperture to the first aperture; and receiving the first image data from the first camera at the first aperture, wherein determining the first image statistics is based on determining the change in aperture.
Sato is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Sato teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of ensuring that an image is properly corrected would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Sato’s known principal of determining a change in aperture for a first camera from a second aperture to the first aperture; and receiving the first image data from the first camera at the first aperture and updating settings in response to the change in aperture (paragraph 147 teaches that in response to changing an aperture setting, image correction parameters are updated). Therefore, when applying this known technique to Pan, it would have been obvious to determine image statistics in response to the change in aperture.
In view of the motivations such as ensuring that an image is properly corrected one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 17 is an apparatus variant of claim 7 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 7.
Claim 27, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 17 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claims 8, 9, 18, 19, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Hua et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0174249), hereinafter referenced as Hua.
Regarding claim 8, Pan in view of Liu discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining the current LSC based on a first pre-calibrated LSC for a second aperture different from the first aperture, wherein the determining of the current LSC is performed before determining the updated lens shading correction (LSC).
Hua is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Hua teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of obtaining correction values without the need to store correction values for every aperture, thereby minimizing memory usage would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Hua’s known principal of interpolating a correction value when a setting falls between two settings which have associated correction values (paragraph 31 teaches interpolating a correction value based on the two correction values corresponding which are respectively greater than and less than the current setting). When applying this known technique to Pan it would have been obvious to store lens shading correction values for a set of aperture values and to interpolate any correction values which fall between the stored values.
In view of the motivations such as obtaining correction values without the need to store correction values for every aperture, thereby minimizing memory usage one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Hua discloses the method of claim 8, however, Pan fails to disclose wherein determining the current LSC is based on the first pre-calibrated LSC for the second aperture different from the first aperture and on a second pre-calibrated LSC for a third aperture different from the second aperture by interpolating between the first pre-calibrated LSC and the second pre-calibrated LSC.
Hua is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Hua teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of obtaining correction values without the need to store correction values for every aperture, thereby minimizing memory usage would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Hua’s known principal of interpolating a correction value when a setting falls between two settings which have associated correction values (paragraph 31 teaches interpolating a correction value based on the two correction values corresponding which are respectively greater than and less than the current setting). When applying this known technique to Pan it would have been obvious to store lens shading correction values for a set of aperture values and to interpolate any correction values which fall between the stored values.
In view of the motivations such as obtaining correction values without the need to store correction values for every aperture, thereby minimizing memory usage one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 18 is an apparatus variant of claim 8 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 8.
Claim 19 is an apparatus variant of claim 9 and is rejected for reasons similar to those of claim 9.
Claim 28, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 18 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claim 29, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, corresponds to and is analyzed the same as the apparatus of claim 19 (paragraph 36 teaches a processor and memory storing an operating program).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Gleason et al. (United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0192256), hereinafter referenced as Gleason.
Regarding claim 20, Pan in view of Liu discloses the apparatus of claim 11, further comprising wherein the at least one processor comprises an image signal processor (ISP) (paragraph 56 discloses an ISP). However, Pan fails to disclose a variable aperture (VA) camera module.
Gleason is a similar or analogous system to the claimed invention as evidenced Gleason teaches an imaging device wherein the motivation of capturing images with different depths of field would have prompted a predictable variation of Pan by applying Gleason’s known principal of a variable aperture (VA) camera module (figure 2 exhibits a camera module with a variable aperture as disclosed at paragraph 19.
In view of the motivations such as capturing images with different depths of field one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the claimed variation of the prior art system of Pan.
Therefore, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 16, 26, 10 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 6 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest when the first image data satisfies the first criteria, determining whether the motion in the first scene is global motion; and when the motion in the first scene is not global motion: determining a statistical measure of the first image statistics, wherein determining the updated LSC is performed based on the statistical measure, in combination with all of the other elements of claim 4 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Pan in view of Liu and further in view of Wang et al. teaches the method of claim 4. However, the combination fails to teach when the first image data satisfies the first criteria, determining whether the motion in the first scene is global motion; and when the motion in the first scene is not global motion: determining a statistical measure of the first image statistics, wherein determining the updated LSC is performed based on the statistical measure as currently claimed.
Claims 16 and 26 are objected to for reasons similar to those of claim 6.
Claim 10 is objected to because the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest determining whether the first image data satisfies the first criteria comprises: determining motion confidence values for the first image data based on the first image statistics; determining a count of motion confidence values above a confidence threshold; determining whether the count is above a local motion threshold; and determining whether the count is above a global motion threshold; and the method further comprising: when the count is above a local motion threshold and below a global motion threshold, processing the first image statistics to determine processed first image statistics, wherein determining the updated LSC is based on processed first image statistics, in combination with the elements of claim 1 from which it is dependent. The closest prior art of record, Pan teaches the method of claim 1. However Pan makes no mention of motion confidence values and therefore fails to reasonably teach or suggest “determining whether the first image data satisfies the first criteria comprises: determining motion confidence values for the first image data based on the first image statistics; determining a count of motion confidence values above a confidence threshold; determining whether the count is above a local motion threshold; and determining whether the count is above a global motion threshold; and the method further comprising: when the count is above a local motion threshold and below a global motion threshold, processing the first image statistics to determine processed first image statistics, wherein determining the updated LSC is based on processed first image statistics” as currently claimed.
Claim 30 is objected to for reasons similar to those of claim 10.
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 JASON A FLOHRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7238. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-3:00.
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.
JASON A. FLOHRE
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/JASON A FLOHRE/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights