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 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that Cote does not disclose “correcting an image after said image is captured since the autofocus is a function that is carried out before capturing an image.”. The examiner disagrees and points out that as seen in the rejection Cote discloses in par. 143, 144, and 297 performing adjusting color gain values and/or determine/adjust coefficients of a color correction matrix for auto-white balance and color adjustment (e.g., during RGB processing), as well as lens shading correction parameters, and that the adjustment of white balance and color balance is happening to a captured image.
Applicant further argues that “Cote doesn't disclose i) correcting an image with a correction matrix, ii) [said correction matrix being] calculated from at least one aberration matrix iii) [said aberration matrix being] determined for said optical lens.”. The examiner notes that it was shown that in par. 382 of Cote it was shown that chromatic aberrations are present in the lens (and impact the focused image), and that in par. 144 it was shown that Cote uses color correction matrix (CCM) coefficients for auto-white balance and color adjustment (e.g., during RGB processing) (of the captured image which contains chromatic aberrations from the lens), and that in par. 279 the estimated color temperature is used to adjust color gain values and/or determine/adjust coefficients (adjusting coefficients requires an existing color correction matrix to adjust, where the color adjustment is adjusting the image with chromatic aberrations occurring from the lens) of a color correction matrix.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-8, 10, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cote et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120051730).
Regarding claim 1, Cote discloses:
A method for image acquisition with an apparatus including a camera module (imaging devices 30, such as a digital camera, par. 108, 122, and Fig. 7) having an optical lens associated with an image sensor (camera 30 may include a lens and one or more image sensors configured to capturing and converting light into electrical signals, par. 122), said method including at least one iteration of a phase of image acquisition by said apparatus comprising the following steps:
capturing an image with said camera module (image data captured by the image sensor, par. 140); and
correcting said captured image as a function of at least one correction matrix (image data is provided from front-end logic 80 to the ISP pipe logic 82 (output signal 109) for additional processing, where ISP pipeline logic 82 uses control parameters 106 such as color correction matrix (CCM) coefficients for auto-white balance and color adjustment (e.g., during RGB processing), as well as lens shading correction, which are determined based on white point balance parameters for processing, par. 143, 144, and 279-281) calculated, directly or indirectly, from at least one matrix, called aberration matrix, determined for said optical lens, and representative of optical aberrations introduced by said optical lens into an image (imaging device 30 may be calibrated using multiple different reference illuminants (imaging through the lens), where the white point of the current scene may be determined by selecting the color correction coefficients corresponding to a reference illuminant that most closely matches the illuminant of the current scene, and when the color temperature of the light source is estimated the estimated color temperature is used to adjust color gain values and/or determine/adjust coefficients of a color correction matrix, and where AF (auto-focus) statistics (from auto-focus over focal lengths) are used to control the color correction matrix coefficients and the auto-focus statistics may also be determined based on each color of the Bayer RGB even in the presence of chromatic aberrations, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 2, Cote further discloses:
the image acquisition phase comprises a step of determining a distance, LSD, between the optical lens and the image sensor, the at least one correction matrix being a function of said LSD distance (AF statistics (from auto-focus over focal lengths) are used to control the color correction matrix coefficients and the auto-focus statistics may also be determined based on each color of the Bayer RGB even in the presence of chromatic aberrations, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 4, Cote further discloses:
calculating at least one correction matrix within said apparatus (ISP pipeline 82 performed additional processing of image date using color correction matrix with adjusted coefficients of a color correction matrix, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 5, Cote further discloses:
the at least one correction matrix is carried out during the acquisition phase so that said at least one correction matrix is calculated on the fly for each captured image (ISP pipeline 82 performs additional processing of image date using color correction matrix with adjusted coefficients of a color correction matrix which are based on previous color correction coefficients during calibration, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 6, Cote further discloses:
calculating the at least one correction matrix is performed prior to the acquisition phase so that said calculating step is common to multiple iterations of the image acquisition phase (ISP pipeline 82 performs additional processing of image date using color correction matrix with adjusted coefficients of a color correction matrix which are based on previous color correction coefficients during calibration, and the techniques are used for moving images/video, par. 10, 105, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 7, Cote further discloses:
at least one correction matrix is calculated from:
at least one aberration matrix;
at least one previously calculated correction kernel matrix comprising coefficients for deducing said at least one correction matrix;
or
at least one previously calculated aberration kernel matrix, comprising coefficients enabling said at least one correction matrix to be deduced (AF (auto-focus) statistics (from auto-focus over focal lengths) are used to control the color correction matrix coefficients and the auto-focus statistics may also be determined based on each color of the Bayer RGB even in the presence of chromatic aberrations, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 8, Cote further discloses:
prior to a first iteration of the acquisition phase, a characterization phase comprising a determination of at least one aberration matrix (white point of the current scene may be determined by selecting the color correction coefficients corresponding to a reference illuminant that most closely matches the illuminant of the current scene, and where AF (auto-focus) statistics (from auto-focus over focal lengths) are used to control the color correction matrix coefficients and the auto-focus statistics may also be determined based on each color of the Bayer RGB even in the presence of chromatic aberrations, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 10, Cote further discloses:
at least one aberration matrix is determined by optical measurement, on the actual optical lens, with an optical measuring apparatus (imaging device 30 may be calibrated using multiple different reference illuminants and the white point of the current scene may be determined by selecting the color correction coefficients (for color correction matrix) corresponding to a reference illuminant that most closely matches the illuminant of the current scene, par. 280).
Regarding claim 11, Cote further discloses:
said at least one aberration matrix is determined by simulation in a digital simulator on a digital model of the optical lens (imaging device 30 may be calibrated (simulation) using multiple different reference illuminants and the white point of the current scene may be determined by selecting the color correction coefficients (for color correction matrix) corresponding to a reference illuminant that most closely matches the illuminant of the current scene, and note that the processing and matrix are digital, par. 280).
Regarding claim 12, Cote further discloses:
said at least one aberration matrix is:
a matrix, called PSF matrix, of Point Spread Function (PSF) values, and/or
a matrix, called OTF matrix, of Optical Transfer Function (OTF) values,
and/or
a matrix of values obtained by wavefront analysis (white point of the current scene may be determined by selecting the color correction coefficients corresponding to a reference illuminant that most closely matches the illuminant of the current scene, and where AF (auto-focus) statistics (from auto-focus over focal lengths) are used to control the color correction matrix coefficients and the auto-focus statistics may also be determined based on each color of the Bayer RGB even in the presence of chromatic aberrations, par. 10, 143, 144, 277-281, 284, and 382).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claims 10, 8, and 1 and note that the limitations of claim 14 were shown and that in Cote a processor (claimed calculating unit) performs the functions (par. 115 and 116).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 1 and note that the limitations of claim 15 were shown and that in Cote a processor (claimed calculating unit) performs the functions (par. 115 and 116).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20120051730) in view of Kim (U.S. Pub. No. 20230070184).
Regarding claim 3, Cote is silent with regards to image acquisition phase further comprises a step of determining a distance, OD, between the optical lens and the scene, the at least one correction matrix being a function of said OD distance. Kim discloses image acquisition phase further comprises a step of determining a distance, OD, between the optical lens and the scene, the at least one correction matrix being a function of said OD distance (information for image correction related to the camera may include a value for adjusting a CCM where the camera setting related to the camera may include a camera setting value (e.g., information on a position of a lens set differently according to a distance between a subject and a camera for auto focus, where the CCM is adjusted using a first adjustment value and a second adjustment value, par. 83, 99, 110, 121, 135). As can be seen in par. 99 this is advantageous in that correcting an aberration of the lens can be done. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include image acquisition phase further comprises a step of determining a distance, OD, between the optical lens and the scene, the at least one correction matrix being a function of said OD distance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 13 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.
Regarding claim 9, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests characterization phase comprises determining:- multiple aberration matrices for multiple regions of the image sensor;- multiple aberration matrices for multiple LSD distance values; and/or - multiple aberration matrices for multiple OD distance values, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and parent claim.
Regarding claim 13, no prior art could be located that teaches or fairly suggests a step of calculating one said at least one matrix, called an aberration kernel matrix, comprising coefficients enabling said at least one aberration matrix to be deduced, in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim and parent claim.
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 NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights