DETAILED ACTION
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 can be paraphrased as follows:
Katashiba does not teach creating an HDR image and does not vary light levels to create an image.
Katashiba teaches multiple steps to create an image and thus does not meet the “real-time” production of an image.
Katashiba teaches away from producing HDR images as in Morholz and therefore the two references would not be combined.
Examiner respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Katashiba is not is relied upon to teach the real-time production of an HDR image. This is taught by Morholz. For example, paras. 37 and 38 teach the processing of images as they are received, without any significant delay, amounting to “real-time” creation of the HD image. The concept of varying light levels in order to create an image is not recited in the claim and thus does not need to be met by prior art.
As stated in the rejection, Morholz is silent on the teaching of a common substrate. Katashiba is only relied upon to meet this limitation. Katashiba is an optical system that uses multiple sensors and one of ordinary skill would recognize that the substrate concept in Katashiba could be used to fasten the sensors in Morholz. Morholz already shows the sensors a common plane, which would suggest that a common substrate would be an efficient way to construct the system.
The purpose of Katashiba's substrate is to fix the sensors in a secure, coplanar arrangement- a purpose that is not frustrated by a combination with Morholz. The different imaging methods (e.g. non-HDR imaging) employed in Katashiba would not have to be incorporated into Morholz, so they do not teach away from Morholz’s method.
For these reasons, the rejections are maintained.
Double Patenting
Claims 20-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of US Patent 10,264,196.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims would have been anticipated by the reference claims. Both sets of claims are directed to a method of beamsplitting between two image sensors, and one of ordinary skill would see the claims in question as obvious variants of each other.
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 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
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 20-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrholz et al., US 2010/0201799 in view of Katashiba et al., US 2014/0204195.
20. Mohrholz teaches a system for producing a high dynamic range (HDR) image, the system comprising:
a device comprising at least two image sensors fixed in a co-planar arrangement [e.g. 4A, 4B, Figs. 3, 4, paras. 44-47];
an optical splitting module operable to reflect at least about 90% of incident light received onto the image sensors [beamsplitters 3A, 3B, etc., Figs. 3, 4, paras. 13, 17-26, 44-47; 80% is “about” 90%]; and
a processing system operable to process image data from the image sensors at the same time to produce an HDR image in real time [6, 7, 8, Figs. 3-4].
Mohrholz is silent on a substrate. Katashiba teaches multiple image sensors in a co-planar arrangement to a substrate [sensors 801-809, Fig. 4, paras. 46-48]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references, in order to obtain focused image data across a wide imaging area [see Katashiba, para. 48].
21. Mohrholz The system of claim 20, wherein the optical splitting module comprises a beamsplitter to transmit a first portion of incident light to a first reflective member and to reflect a second portion of the incident light to a second reflective member [beamsplitters 3A, 3B, 3C transmit and reflect portions of light to first and second members, Figs. 3, 4, paras. 13, 17-26, 44-47].
22. Mohrholz teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the first and second reflective members transmit at least about 95 % of the incident light onto the image sensors [~99% in Figs. 3 and 4].
23. Mohrholz teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the first and second reflective members comprise a substrate having a reflective coating [3A/3B etc., e.g. mirrors, paras. 12, 18, 36, 46].
24. Mohrholz teaches the system of claim 23, wherein the first and second reflective members are mirrors [paras. 12, 18, 36, 46].
25. Mohrholz teaches the system of claim 21, wherein the beamsplitter provides light paths of substantially the same length to each of the image sensors [e.g. light passing through beamsplitter 3C splits in two same length paths to sensors 4C and 4D.
26. Katashiba teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the image sensors are operable to detect different portions of visible light [paras. 80-82].
27. Katashiba teaches the system of claim 20, wherein the image sensors are affixed to an integrated circuit (IC) [Fig. 4].
Claims 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohrholz and Katashiba as cited above in view of Tocci, US 8,320,047.
28. The above references teach image sensors and optical splitting, but are silent on a mobile device. Tocci teaches an HDR imaging system using a mobile camera [col. 4, ll. 36-52; col. 3, 54-56]. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, implementing the HDR system on a mobile device to enable portability and flexibility in framing shots.
29. Tocci teaches the system of claim 28, wherein said mobile device is a handheld computing device selected from the group consisting of a mobile phone, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a wearable computer, and a digital mobile camera [col. 4, ll. 36-52; col. 3, 54-56].
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 Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights