Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/823,647

LOW-LIGHT AUTOFOCUS TECHNIQUE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 03, 2024
Examiner
BHUIYAN, FAYEZ A
Art Unit
2638
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Google LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
470 granted / 559 resolved
+22.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
571
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
2.6%
-37.4% vs TC avg
§103
36.4%
-3.6% vs TC avg
§102
43.5%
+3.5% vs TC avg
§112
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 559 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 1-4, 6, 12-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2016/0127628) hereinafter Chen in view of Noftsker et al. (US 2020/0139078 A1) hereinafter Noftsker. Regarding Claim 1, Chen teaches a method comprising: receiving an indication of a low-light condition for a camera system (Para.0025 and 0040; “frame 120 is dark which consider as low light); determining an extended exposure time for a low-light autofocus procedure of the camera system (fig.1 and 7; Para.0025, 0040 and 0045; longer exposure time and auto focus for a low-light condition); and performing the low-light autofocus (Para.0025, 0040 and 0045) procedure by: capturing, by the camera system (fig.7; camera 790), an extended frame using the extended exposure time (Para.0045); and determining, based on the extended frame, an in-focus lens setting for a lens of the camera system (fig.1 and 7; Para.0032-0033; lens system 108). Chen does not teach generating a timer that is presented on a display, wherein a value of the timer is based at least on the extended exposure time; Noftsker teaches generating a timer that is presented on a display, wherein a value of the timer is based at least on the extended exposure time (fig.4; Para.0030-0032; timer 48 on display 44 measures actual exposure); Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen to include: generating a timer that is presented on a display, wherein a value of the timer is based at least on the extended exposure time as taught by Noftsker to improve image capturing (see background). Regarding Claim 2, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the method of claim 1, wherein the value of the timer indicates how much time remains in the low-light autofocus procedure (Chen: fig.1 and 7; Para.0025, 0040 and 0045; longer exposure time and auto focus for a low-light condition). Regarding Claim 3, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the method of claim 1, wherein the extended exposure time is user-selectable (Noftsker: fig.4; Para.0030-0032; timer 48 measures actual exposure by user). Regarding Claim 4, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: capturing, by the camera system (fig.1-2), a plurality of additional frames (fig.1-2; Para.0025, 0040 and 0045; longer or shorter exposures time), wherein each of the additional frames is captured by the camera system using a secondary exposure time, and wherein the secondary exposure time is shorter than the extended exposure time (fig.1 and 7; Para.0025, 0040 and 0045; longer or shorter exposures time); aligning the additional frames such that similar objects in the additional frames are in similar pixel locations within each of the additional frames; and forming a composite image based on the additional frames (Chen: fig.1-2; Para.0024-0025; integration period to generate first or second pixels data). Regarding Claim 6, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting the lens based on the in-focus lens setting (Chen: Para.0030-0033; setting lens 108). Regarding Claim 12, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the method of claim 1, wherein performing the low-light autofocus (Chen: Para.0025 and 0040; “frame 120 is dark which consider as low light) procedure further comprises: capturing, by the camera system, a plurality of extended frames (Chen: fig.1 and 7; Para.0032-0033; lens system 108 for frame capturing), wherein determining the in-focus lens setting for the lens of the camera system is based on the plurality of extended frames (Chen: fig.1 and 7; Para.0032-0033; lens system 108 setting based on exposures frames). Regarding Claim 13, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the method of claim 1, wherein the camera system is a component of a mobile device (Chen: Para.0022; mobile phone in fig.1). Regarding Claim 15, Chen in view of Noftsker teach same reason as Claim 1. Regarding Claim 16, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the value of the timer indicates how much time remains in the low-light autofocus procedure (Chen: fig.1 and 7; Para.0025, 0040 and 0045; longer exposure time and auto focus for a low-light condition). Regarding Claim 17, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, wherein the extended exposure time is user-selectable (Noftsker: fig.4; Para.0030-0032; timer 48 measures actual exposure by user). Regarding Claim 18, Chen in view of Noftsker teach same reason as Claim 1. Regarding Claim 19, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the device of claim 18, wherein the value of the timer indicates how much time remains in the low-light autofocus procedure (Chen: fig.1 and 7; Para.0025, 0040 and 0045; longer exposure time and auto focus for a low-light condition). Regarding Claim 20, Chen in view of Noftsker teach the device of claim 18, wherein the extended exposure time is user-selectable (Noftsker: fig.4; Para.0030-0032; timer 48 measures actual exposure by user). Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen and Noftsker as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 12-13 and 15-20 above, and further in view of Gordon et al. (US 2020/0092453 A1) hereinafter Gordon. Chen and Noftsker do not teach determining the extended exposure time is based on a motion-blur tolerance and the low-light condition. Gordon teaches determining the extended exposure time is based on a motion-blur tolerance and the low-light condition (fig.1; Para.0003; “Extending exposure time can result in motion blur from camera shake, shearing artifacts in rolling shutter systems, and object motion blur”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Noftsker to include determining the extended exposure time is based on a motion-blur tolerance and the low-light condition as taught by Gordon to improve image capturing (see background). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 7-11 and 14 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAYEZ A BHUIYAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1562. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 - 6:00 M-F. 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, Lin Ye can be reached on 571-272-7372. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /FAYEZ BHUIYAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639 /LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 03, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 14, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12598380
ELECTRONIC DEVICE AND CONTROL METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585169
IMAGING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12554146
THIN DUAL-APERTURE ZOOM DIGITAL CAMERA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12549857
SHAKE CORRECTION DEVICE, IMAGING APPARATUS, SHAKE CORRECTION METHOD, AND SHAKE CORRECTION PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12542981
PHOTORECEPTOR MODULE AND SOLID-STATE IMAGING DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 559 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month