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 .
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, 10 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 4 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,131,504. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every feature or element in the claims of the instant Application are recited in claims of the patent. Since the word “comprising” in claims of the instant application does not preclude further limitations of the claims of the Patent, the claims of the instant Applications would be obvious in view of the claims of the Patent.
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.
Claims 1, 10 and 19 are 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. The scope of the claimed invention “generating first and . . . . for a green channel” is not consistent with the scope of Applicant’s specification disclosure (MPEP 2173.03) and therefore renders the claims indefinite. Specifically, Applicant’s published disclosure repeatedly discloses the clear channels together with Red and Blue in an RCCB filter setup is used to replace the value from a green channel, see for example Para [0017], “As another example, a variant of RGGB pattern, RCCB, may use clear pixels in place of the green pixels. The RCCB pattern may help increase light sensitivity to provide better low-light performance”. The disclosure does not, directly or indirectly, disclose the RCCB setup with an associated clear channel is physically generating values into or for the green channel per se. In the setup, the green channel is physically either nulled or not present as part of the processing in i.e. RCCB. Therefore, this language is indefinite for rendering the scope of the claim vague and confusing because it is not consistent with Applicant’s disclosed invention. Alternative language to overcome this rejection may be for example “generate first and second intermediate values e.g. corresponding to a green channel value, as replacement value for a green channel, for lacking/missing/unmeasured a green channel.
Similar observations are applied to the citation “applying a correction function . . . to determine values for the green channel” of the claims 1, 10 and 19, wherein the disclosed invention fails to physically determine values for a missing green channel per se.
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 depend from an indefinite base claim and are thus indefinite themselves.
Claims 3, 12 and 20 are 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). Similar observations as discussed with respect to claims 1, 10, and 19 are applied to the “green channel” language in the phrase “the values for the green channel have a different bit depth . . .” of claims 3, 12 and 20. The disclosed invention for a RCCB setup never considers the green channel in the process. Therefore, the claimed inventions are indefinite for lack of consistency with Applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 are 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). The cited language “to subtract the offset vale from the first and second clipped values” are in contradiction with the “adding of the offset value to the second intermediate value” of claims 1 and 10. While the recitation in Applicant’s published specification discloses, para [0042], “the color correction function may also effectively remove the color offset value from the final color values so that the application of the color offset in block 506 does not result in an unintended increase in the intensity of the color channel in the final image”, seems to be referring to optional step of removing the offset from the color values, the claimed language is ambiguous due to the fact that the condition(s) under which the option of removing the offset is being exercised, as specified in the disclosure is missing. Therefore, the claims 7 and 16 are indefinite due to the language of the claims being confusing based on the alternative language/optionally criteria in the claims (MPEP 2173.05(h)).
Claims 7 and 17 depend from an indefinite base claim and are thus indefinite themselves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art or the prior art of record specifically, US 11,089,180 B2 to Ulichney et al, US 10,699,671 B2 to Strom et al and US 9686448 B2 to Tajbakhsh et al, does not disclose:
. . . . generate first and second intermediate values for a green channel in the image based on values associated with a clear channel in the image; clip the first intermediate value having a magnitude outside of a range to generate a first clipped value; add an offset value to the second intermediate value having a magnitude within the range to generate a second clipped value; and apply a correction function to the first and second clipped values based on the offset value to determine values for the green channel, of claims 1, 10 and 19 combined with other features and elements of the claims;
Claims 2-9, 11-18 and 20 depend from an allowable base claim and are thus themselves allowable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5731. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-12:00 PST.
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, Sue Lefkowitz can be reached at (571)272-3638. 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.
/SHERVIN K NAKHJAVAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights