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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovic in view of Seets et al. (11,539,895)
Regarding claim 1, Bodlovic teaches an image capture apparatus comprising: an image capture element including an avalanche photodiode configured to photoelectrically convert an optical image (Bodlovic, SPAD 607, applications involving imaging discussed at [0080]) and; at least one processor (Bodlovic, controller 650); and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to: generate an image signal based on an output signal from the image capture element; calculate, based on the image signal, a number of occurrences of avalanche amplification in the image capture element (Bodlovic, [0070]); store a cumulative value of the number of occurrences (id. “providing an output based on the count of avalanche events”); and control a parameter related to exposure when it is determined that a brightness of an image based on the image signal is out of a predetermined range (Bodlovic, [0072]), wherein the predetermined range is decided based on the cumulative value (id., “The controller 650 preferably adjusts the operating parameters of the photon counting apparatus 600 based on the count rate, […]”).
Bodlovic lacks explicit teaching of a cumulative captured count value used for brightness parameter control.
Seets teaches a cumulative captured count value used for brightness parameter control. (Seets, Col. 8, Lines 8-23; Col. 11, Lines 11-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the chargepoint identification techniques of Seets into the detector of Bodlovic in order to improve brightness corrections for the SPAD array.
Regarding claim 2, Bodlovic further discloses the number of occurrences is calculated by performing a predetermined transformation on the image signal. (Bodlovic, [0070])
Regarding claim 13, Bodlovic discloses a method comprising: generating an image signal based on an output signal from an image capture element; calculating a number of occurrences of avalanche amplification in the image capture element based on the image signal; storing a cumulative value of the number of occurrences; and controlling a parameter related to exposure when it is determined that a brightness of an image based on the image signal is out of a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is decided based on the cumulative value. (Bodlovic, [0070]-[0072])
Regarding claim 20, Bodlovic discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions for causing a computer to execute a method comprising: generating an image signal based on an output signal from an image capture element; calculating a number of occurrences of avalanche amplification in the image capture element based on the image signal; storing a cumulative value of the number of occurrences; and controlling a parameter related to exposure when it is determined that a brightness of an image based on the image signal is out of a predetermined range, wherein the predetermined range is decided based on the cumulative value. (Bodlovic, [0070]-[0072])
Bodlovic lacks explicit teaching of a cumulative captured count value used for brightness parameter control.
Seets teaches a cumulative captured count value used for brightness parameter control. (Seets, Col. 8, Lines 8-23; Col. 11, Lines 11-22)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the chargepoint identification techniques of Seets into the detector of Bodlovic in order to improve brightness corrections for the SPAD array.
Claims 3-4, 6-10, 12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovic in view of Seets and Sfaradi et al. (2015/0373250)
Regarding claims 3-4, 6-10, 12, 14, and 16-19, the particular methods of measuring scene brightness and the manner of exposure control (beyond diode bias voltage, temperature, and quenching period adjustment) are not discussed. Sfaradi teaches a robust exposure measurement and control system including region of interest identification, region specific exposure control, brightness measurement from either dedicated sensing pixels or selected portions of the scene, wavelength-selective brightness measurement, and responding exposure modification. (Sfaradi, throughout)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the exposure measurement and control operations of Sfaradi with the SPAD detector system of Bodlovic in order to implement Bodlovic’s directive to adjust the gain of the system (exposure) in response to the incident photon flux on the sensor.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bodlovic in view of Seets and Azuma (2020/0044109)
Regarding claims 21-24, the combination of Bodlovic and Seets lacks explicit teaching of a degradation estimation function and exposure adjustment based on that degradation estimation.
Azuma teaches the estimation of the degradation properties of the SPAD cells in the SPAD array and adjustment of brightness thresholds in response to that estimation. (Azuma, [0104]-[0106])
It would have been obvious to include the degradation calculation of Azuma in the device of Bodlovic and Seets in order to further improve sensor performance by identifying degraded sensors.
Response to Arguments
Applicants amendments are sufficient to overcome the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102. New rejections are presented herein under 35 U.S.C. 103. Applicants arguments with respect to the prior rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 are therefore moot.
Conclusion
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 EDWIN C GUNBERG whose telephone number is (571)270-3107. 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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/EDWIN C GUNBERG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights