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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/6/2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 recites “([0064)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein image sizes of the plurality of HDR image data are same.”, wherein the image sizes of the plurality of divided HDR image data are differ as required by claim 1. It is not clear whether the image sizes are the same or difference.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reason as discussed in claim 3 above.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims1 and 3-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,087,325. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claims 1 and 20 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the Patent.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 3 of the Patent.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 4 of the Patent.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the Patent.
Claim 14 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the Patent.
Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the Patent.
Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the Patent.
Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the Patent.
Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of the Patent.
Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of the Patent.
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 7 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,994. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application claims broader in every aspect than the patent claim and is therefore an obvious variant thereof.
Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 4 of the Patent.
Claim 3 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of the Patent.
Claim 4 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of the Patent.
Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 4 of the Patent.
Claim1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,308,991(#991) in view of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,741,994 (#994).
For claim 1 of the instant application, #991 teaches a method for controlling an image capture device, the image capture device including an image sensor and an encoding processor, and recording HDR (high dynamic range) image data (e.g. see claim 1 of #991), the method comprising:
encoding HDR image data obtained by capturing an image with the image sensor (e.g. see claim 1 of #991); and
dividing part of the HDR image data into a plurality of divided HDR image data (e.g. see claim 1 of #991);
encoding each of the divided HDR image data by using the encoding processor (e.g. see claim 1 of #991); and
recording the plurality of encoded divided HDR image data and image structure information for combining the plurality of divided HDR image data into the HDR image data before being divided, in one image file of predetermined recording format on a recording medium (e.g. see claim 1 of #991).
#991 does not further specify:
wherein image sizes of the plurality of divided HDR image data differ depending on an image size of the HDR image data recorded in the image file.
#994 teaches wherein image sizes of the plurality of divided HDR image data differ depending on an image size of the HDR image data recorded in the image file (e.g. see claim 4 of #994). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of #994 into the teaching of #991 to record High Dynamic Range image data (e.g. column 1, lines 20-35 of #994) to improve image quality to enhance user’s watching experience of the image data.
Claim 20 of the instant application is rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above.
For claim 2, #991 teaches wherein the predetermined recording format is a High Efficiency Image File (HEIF) (e.g. see claim 2 of #991), wherein each of the plurality of divided HDR image data is encoded by the encoding processor in a HEVC format (e.g. see claim 2 of #991), and wherein the plurality of divided HDR image data is recorded in the image file as image item, and the image structure information is recorded in the image file as a derived item (e.g. see claim 4 of #991).
For claim 3, #991 teaches the predetermined recording format is a grid format of HEIF, and wherein image sizes of the plurality of HDR image data are same (e.g. see claims 4 and 7 of #991).
For claim 4, #991 teaches wherein the predetermined recording format is an overlay format of HEIF, and wherein image sizes of the plurality of HDR image data are able to be different from each other (e.g. see claims 4 and 7 of #991).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAQUAN ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)270-1119. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur: 7:00 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, Thai Tran can be reached on 571-272-7382. 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.
Email: daquan.zhao1@uspto.gov.
Phone: (571)270-1119
/DAQUAN ZHAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484