DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to communication filed on May 22, 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed March 16, 2026 was received and has been considered by the Examiner.
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 § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8, 12, 13, 17-20, 25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Corum et al. (US 6,101,287).
Consider claim 1, Corum et al. teaches:
A processor-implemented (processor, 626, figure 6, column 5, lines 43-65) method with image acquisition (see figures 1, 2 and 5), the method comprising:
acquiring image frames comprising a shutter-off frame corresponding to a shutter-off through a sensor (image sensor, 617 figure 6, column 5, lines 29-35) by performing the shutter-off during continuous shooting (Figure 5 shows continuous shooting comprising acquiring image frames (MF) including at least one dark frame (F’D, i.e. shutter-off frame), column 5, lines 1-27. See also step 210 of figure 2, column 3, lines 27-29, column 1, lines 52-56.);
acquiring a measurement signal corresponding to a target image frame (e.g. MFK, figure 5, column 5, lines 1-27);
removing, based on a target shutter-off frame (F’D) corresponding to the target image frame (MFK), a first remaining signal corresponding to the target shutter-off frame (F’D) from a measurement signal corresponding to shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3) comprising image frames acquired after the target shutter-off frame (F’D) and before the target image frame (MFK) (A first remaining signal is removed by removing a signal corresponding to the dark frame (F’D), column 5, lines 1-27. As shown in figure 2, the target shutter-off frame is acquired in step 210 before a target image frame is acquired in step 220, column 3, lines 27-30. As detailed in column 2, lines 59-60, “These frames are obtained from the same image sensor in no particular order.”); and
generating a target image frame from which a second remaining signal is removed based on one or more of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3) from which the first remaining signal is removed (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. further teaches that for the removing of the first remaining signal, the image signal restoration device is further configured to: estimate the first remaining signal based on the target shutter-off frame and parameter information of the sensor, and remove the first remaining signal from the measurement signal corresponding to the shutter-off period frames (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R, i.e. parameter information) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 3, and as applied to claim 2 above, Corum et al. further teaches that for the estimating of the first remaining signal, the image signal restoration device is further configured to estimate a remaining signal due to a signal generated before a shutter-off corresponding to the target shutter-off frame based on the target shutter-off frame and information on a photodiode forming the sensor (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R, i.e. photodiode information) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the generating of the target image frame from which the second remaining signal is removed comprises generating a target image frame from which a remaining signal due to a signal after a shutter-off corresponding to the target shutter-off frame is removed (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R, i.e. a remaining signal due to a signal after a shutter-off corresponding to the target shutter-off frame) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 12, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the acquiring of the image frames comprises: determining a frequency and timing of the shutter-off; and acquiring the image frames by performing the shutter-off according to the determined frequency and timing (“As an alternative to using a single dark frame 116, more than one dark frame may be captured and used with the motion frames 126.sub.Mk. For instance, a separate dark frame can be captured and used to adjust every five motion frames.” column 5, lines 19-27).
Consider claim 13, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the acquiring of the image frames comprises acquiring the image frames by periodically performing the shutter-off (“As an alternative to using a single dark frame 116, more than one dark frame may be captured and used with the motion frames 126.sub.Mk. For instance, a separate dark frame can be captured and used to adjust every five motion frames.” column 5, lines 19-27).
Consider claim 17, Corum et al. teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions (“In that case, the imager module 618 or digital camera 614 would include an article comprising a machine readable medium such as semiconductor memory that includes instructions which when executed by the processor cause the steps of FIG. 2 to be performed.”, column 5, lines 46-65) that, when executed by one or more processors (processor, 626, figure 6, column 5, lines 43-65), configure the one or more processors to perform the method of claim 1 (see claim 1 rationale).
Consider claim 18, Corum et al. teaches:
An electronic device (figure 6) comprising:
an image signal acquisition device comprising a sensor (image sensor, 617 figure 6, column 5, lines 29-35) configured to acquire image frames comprising a shutter-off frame corresponding to a shutter-off by performing the shutter-off during continuous shooting, and acquire a measurement signal corresponding to a target image frame (Figure 5 shows continuous shooting comprising acquiring image frames (MF) including at least one dark frame (F’D, i.e. shutter-off frame), column 5, lines 1-27. See also step 210 of figure 2, column 3, lines 27-29, column 1, lines 52-56. A measurement signal corresponding to a target image frame is acquired (e.g. MFK, figure 5, column 5, lines 1-27).); and
an image signal restoration device (processor, 626, figure 6, column 5, lines 43-65) configured to remove, based on a target shutter-off frame (F’D) corresponding to the target image frame (MFK), a first remaining signal corresponding to the target shutter-off frame (F’D) from a measurement signal corresponding to shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3) comprising image frames acquired after the target shutter-off frame (F’D) and before the target image frame (MFK) (A first remaining signal is removed by removing a signal corresponding to the dark frame (F’D), column 5, lines 1-27. As shown in figure 2, the target shutter-off frame is acquired in step 210 before a target image frame is acquired in step 220, column 3, lines 27-30. As detailed in column 2, lines 59-60, “These frames are obtained from the same image sensor in no particular order.”), and
generate a target image frame from which a second remaining signal is removed based on one or more of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3) from which the first remaining signal is removed (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 19, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. further teaches that for the removing of the first remaining signal, the image signal restoration device is further configured to: estimate the first remaining signal based on the target shutter-off frame and parameter information of the sensor, and remove the first remaining signal from the measurement signal corresponding to the shutter-off period frames (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R, i.e. parameter information) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 20, and as applied to claim 19 above, Corum et al. further teaches that for the estimating of the first remaining signal, the image signal restoration device is further configured to estimate a remaining signal due to a signal generated before a shutter-off corresponding to the target shutter-off frame based on the target shutter-off frame and information on a photodiode forming the sensor (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R, i.e. photodiode information) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 25, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the generating of the target image frame from which the second remaining signal is removed comprises generating a target image frame from which a remaining signal due to a signal after a shutter-off corresponding to the target shutter-off frame is removed (A target image is generated by subtracting an adjusted dark frame (F’’D) which removes the first remaining signal (F’D) and a second remaining signal that is calculated based on the values of dark reference pixels (R, i.e. a remaining signal due to a signal after a shutter-off corresponding to the target shutter-off frame) of the shutter-off period frames (MF1, MF2, MF3), see figures 1 and 5, column 5, lines 1-18, column 3, lines 12-24.).
Consider claim 29, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the acquiring of the image frames comprises: determining a frequency and timing of the shutter-off; and acquiring the image frames by performing the shutter-off according to the determined frequency and timing (“As an alternative to using a single dark frame 116, more than one dark frame may be captured and used with the motion frames 126.sub.Mk. For instance, a separate dark frame can be captured and used to adjust every five motion frames.” column 5, lines 19-27).
Consider claim 30, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the acquiring of the image frames comprises acquiring the image frames by periodically performing the shutter-off (“As an alternative to using a single dark frame 116, more than one dark frame may be captured and used with the motion frames 126.sub.Mk. For instance, a separate dark frame can be captured and used to adjust every five motion frames.” column 5, lines 19-27).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 9, 10, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corum et al. (US 6,101,287) in view of Im et al. (US 2019/0131349).
Consider claim 9, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. does not explicitly teach that the sensor comprises an organic photodiode.
Im et al. similarly teaches an image sensor comprising a plurality of unit pixels (see paragraph 0022).
However, Im et al. additionally teaches that each of the unit pixels (see figure 16) comprises an OPD (organic photodiode, 173) and a silicon photodiode (silicon photodiode, 202), paragraphs 0151-0159.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensor taught by Corum et al. comprise an OPD and a silicon photodiode as taught by Im et al. for the benefit of enabling wide dynamic range imaging to be effectively performed (Im et al., paragraph 0159).
Consider claim 10, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. does not explicitly teach that the sensor comprises a hybrid image sensor comprising an organic photodiode and a silicon photodiode.
Im et al. similarly teaches an image sensor comprising a plurality of unit pixels (see paragraph 0022).
However, Im et al. additionally teaches that each of the unit pixels (see figure 16) comprises an OPD (organic photodiode, 173) and a silicon photodiode (silicon photodiode, 202), paragraphs 0151-0159.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensor taught by Corum et al. comprise an OPD and a silicon photodiode as taught by Im et al. for the benefit of enabling wide dynamic range imaging to be effectively performed (Im et al., paragraph 0159).
Consider claim 26, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. does not explicitly teach that the sensor comprises an organic photodiode.
Im et al. similarly teaches an image sensor comprising a plurality of unit pixels (see paragraph 0022).
However, Im et al. additionally teaches that each of the unit pixels (see figure 16) comprises an OPD (organic photodiode, 173) and a silicon photodiode (silicon photodiode, 202), paragraphs 0151-0159.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensor taught by Corum et al. comprise an OPD and a silicon photodiode as taught by Im et al. for the benefit of enabling wide dynamic range imaging to be effectively performed (Im et al., paragraph 0159).
Consider claim 27, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. does not explicitly teach that the sensor comprises a hybrid image sensor comprising an organic photodiode and a silicon photodiode.
Im et al. similarly teaches an image sensor comprising a plurality of unit pixels (see paragraph 0022).
However, Im et al. additionally teaches that each of the unit pixels (see figure 16) comprises an OPD (organic photodiode, 173) and a silicon photodiode (silicon photodiode, 202), paragraphs 0151-0159.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sensor taught by Corum et al. comprise an OPD and a silicon photodiode as taught by Im et al. for the benefit of enabling wide dynamic range imaging to be effectively performed (Im et al., paragraph 0159).
Claims 11 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corum et al. (US 6,101,287).
Consider claims 11 and 28, and as applied to claims 1 and 18 above, Corum et al. further teaches that the sensor comprises an image sensor (image sensor, 617 figure 6, column 5, lines 29-35).
Corum et al. does not explicitly teach that the sensor includes an optical structure for improving sensitivity.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of having an image sensor include an optical structure for improving sensitivity are well known and expected in the art. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the image sensor taught by Corum et al. include an optical structure for improving sensitivity for the benefit of improving image quality.
Claims 16 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corum et al. (US 6,101,287) in view of Yoshikawa (US 2020/0244902).
Consider claim 16, and as applied to claim 1 above, Corum et al. does not explicitly teach acquiring a short-term image frame corresponding to an exposure time shorter than an exposure time of the image frames; and generating a high dynamic range (HDR) image based on the short-term image frame.
Yoshikawa similarly teaches an image sensor (figure 2) which performs continuous imaging (“moving-image capturing” paragraph 0072).
However, Yoshikawa additionally teaches acquiring a short-term image frame corresponding to an exposure time shorter than an exposure time of the image frames; and generating a high dynamic range (HDR) image based on the short-term image frame (“A frame period with a long charge accumulation period is referred to as a long frame period, and a frame period with a short charge accumulation period is referred to as a short frame period. An image with a wide dynamic range can be obtained by performing so-called high dynamic range (HDR) processing on and combining a frame image output in a long frame period and a frame image output in a short frame period.” paragraph 0072, figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imaging operations taught by Corum et al. include capturing a short-term image frame and generating an HDR image as taught by Yoshikawa for the benefit of enabling an image with high dynamic range to be obtained (Yoshikawa, paragraph 0072).
Consider claim 33, and as applied to claim 18 above, Corum et al. does not explicitly teach acquiring a short-term image frame corresponding to an exposure time shorter than an exposure time of the image frames; and generating a high dynamic range (HDR) image based on the short-term image frame.
Yoshikawa similarly teaches an image sensor (figure 2) which performs continuous imaging (“moving-image capturing” paragraph 0072).
However, Yoshikawa additionally teaches acquiring a short-term image frame corresponding to an exposure time shorter than an exposure time of the image frames; and generating a high dynamic range (HDR) image based on the short-term image frame (“A frame period with a long charge accumulation period is referred to as a long frame period, and a frame period with a short charge accumulation period is referred to as a short frame period. An image with a wide dynamic range can be obtained by performing so-called high dynamic range (HDR) processing on and combining a frame image output in a long frame period and a frame image output in a short frame period.” paragraph 0072, figure 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the imaging operations taught by Corum et al. include capturing a short-term image frame and generating an HDR image as taught by Yoshikawa for the benefit of enabling an image with high dynamic range to be obtained (Yoshikawa, paragraph 0072).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 14, 15, 21-24, 31 and 32 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Consider claim 4, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the removing of the first remaining signal comprises removing the first remaining signal from the measurement signal corresponding to the shutter-off period frames by inputting the target shutter-off frame into a first artificial neural network model, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 1.
Consider claim 5, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the generating of the target image frame from which the second remaining signal is removed comprises generating the target image frame from which the second remaining signal is removed by inputting shutter-off period frames from which the first remaining signal is removed into a second artificial neural network model, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 1.
Consider claim 6, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest restoring an image frame corresponding to the target shutter-off frame by inputting a predetermined number of before and after image frames based on the target shutter-off frame into a third artificial neural network model, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 1.
Consider claim 7, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the shutter-off frame constructs an image with a residual charge of a photodiode forming the sensor without acquiring a signal during a time corresponding to the shutter-off, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 1.
Consider claim 14, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the removing of the first remaining signal comprises: acquiring a residual signal between the shutter-off period frames; and acquiring the shutter-off period frames from which the first remaining signal is removed based on the residual signal between the shutter-off period frames, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 1.
Claim 15 contains allowable subject matter as depending from claim 14.
Consider claim 21, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that for the removing of the first remaining signal, the image signal restoration device is further configured to remove the first remaining signal from the measurement signal corresponding to the shutter-off period frames by inputting the target shutter-off frame into a first artificial neural network model, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 18.
Consider claim 22, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that for the generating of the target image frame, the image signal restoration device is further configured to generate the target image frame from which the second remaining signal is removed by inputting shutter-off period frames from which the first remaining signal is removed into a second artificial neural network model, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 18.
Consider claim 23, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the image signal restoration device is further configured to restore an image frame corresponding to the target shutter-off frame by inputting a predetermined number of before and after image frames based on the target shutter-off frame into a third artificial neural network model, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 18.
Consider claim 24, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that the shutter-off frame constructs an image with a residual charge of a photodiode forming the sensor without acquiring a signal during a time corresponding to the shutter-off, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 18.
Consider claim 31, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that for the removing of the first remaining signal, the image signal restoration device is further configured to: acquire a residual signal between the shutter-off period frames, and acquire the shutter-off period frames from which the first remaining signal is removed based on the residual signal between the shutter-off period frames, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 18.
Consider claim 32, the prior art of record does not teach nor reasonably suggest that for the generating of the target image frame, the image signal restoration device is further configured to: generate a residual signal between the shutter-off period frames from which the first remaining signal is removed, and generate the target image frame from which the second remaining signal is removed, based on the residual signal between the shutter-off period frames from which the first remaining signal is removed, in combination with the other elements recited in parent claim 18.
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 ALBERT H CUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1460. The examiner can normally be reached approximately Mon - Fri 8:00-4:30.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/ALBERT H CUTLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights