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 .
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 of this title, 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) 1-3, 8, 11-13, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo (US 20170142359 A1) in view of Tsai (US 20210352235 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikedo discloses a method (title, abstract, ¶0002, ¶0009, ¶0040, claim 9 and dependents) comprising:
receiving an image from an image sensor (image sensor 600, fig. 3), the image comprising a set of pixels (pixel 100, fig. 3, see claim 9 “reading signals… unit pixels”);
dynamically computing an offset for the image (In this embodiment, a difference between the dark current amount of a normal row and the dark current amount of an AF row, namely, an offset value, is calculated when a first correction processing unit 2001 executes correction processing with the use of the output signals from the unit pixels 100 that are located in the first reference pixel area 1901 –¶0146) by:
identifying an active region (The area of the pixel array 600 that remains after excluding the reference pixel area 601 is a light-receiving pixel area (open pixel area) 602 in which light-receiving pixels configured to receive an optical image of an object are arranged. – ¶0054, fig. 4) and a reference region (As illustrated in FIG. 4, a part of the pixel array 600 is an optical black (OB) pixel area (reference pixel area) 601 in which optical black (OB) pixels (reference pixels) having optically shielded photodiodes 101A and 101B are arranged. – ¶0054, fig. 4) of the image sensor (600, fig. 3), and
averaging values of pixels in the reference region to compute the offset (The normal-row averaging unit 5023 is configured to perform averaging processing on pixel signals input to the normal-row averaging unit 5023, and to calculate and average black level. – ¶0099. Also see ¶0102-0107, ¶0112-0118, ¶0151-0156 … etc.),
applying the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels (A correction value based on an average black level that is calculated by the normal-row averaging unit 5023 is subtracted from a pixel signal that has been output from a normal row. – ¶0101).
Ikedo is not found disclosing expressly the limitation of, binning subsets of the set of pixels to generate an updated image, the updated image having lower resolution than the image received from the image sensor.
However, Tsai pixel binning to derive subsets of a set of pixels to generate updated mage having lower resolution that the original image (see Abstract, ¶0001-005, figs. 2-3, claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ikedo with the teaching of Tsai of binning pixels as necessary, to obtain, binning subsets of the set of pixels to generate an updated image, the updated image having lower resolution than the image received from the image sensor. Because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, Tsai’s pixel binning improves signal to noise ration and reduces quantization error [Tsai: ¶0002].
Regarding claim 2, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein computing the offset for the image comprises computing an offset based on an amount of dark current (Ikedo: In this embodiment, a difference between the dark current amount of a normal row and the dark current amount of an AF row, namely, an offset value, is calculated when a first correction processing unit 2001 executes correction processing with the use of the output signals from the unit pixels 100 that are located in the first reference pixel area 1901. – ¶0146
One of the calculated values is a difference between the dark current amount of an A+B image signal from the unit pixel 100 that is located in a normal row and the dark current amount of an A image signal from the unit pixel 100 that is located in an AF row (the first offset value). The other calculated value is a difference between the dark current amount of an A+B image signal from the unit pixel 100 that is located in a normal row and the dark current amount of an A+B image signal from the unit pixel 100 that is located in an AF row (the second offset value). – ¶0180).
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the amount of dark current is non-uniform across the reference region and the active region (Ikedo: Evident from figs. 8A-B, 11-16, 18, 23, 27 … etc.).
Regarding claim 8, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, wherein binning subsets of the set of pixels to generate the updated image comprises computing average pixel values of the subsets (see Ikedo, claim 7, see claim 7: "calculating unit configured to calculate a first offset value based on a difference between the average value that is obtained by the first averaging unit and the average value that is obtained by the second averaging unit".).
Regarding claim 11, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured to store instructions, the instructions when executed by a processor cause the processor (Ikedo: ¶0010, 0203, claim 10 and dependents) to:
receive an image from an image sensor, the image comprising a set of pixels;
dynamically compute an offset for the image by:
identifying an active region and a reference region of the image sensor, and
averaging values of pixels in the reference region to compute the offset,
apply the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels; and
bin subsets of the set of pixels to generate an updated image, the updated image having lower resolution than the image received from the image sensor (see substantively similar claim 1 rejection above).
Regarding CRM claim(s) 12-13, 18 although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the method claim(s) 2-3, 8 respectively as described above.
Regarding claim 20, Ikedo in view of Tsai a system (Ikedo: 1000, fig. 3) comprising:
an image sensor (Ikedo: 600, fig. 3); and
an image processing system (Ikedo: 500, fig. 3) configured to:
receive an image from the image sensor, the image comprising a set of pixels;
dynamically compute an offset for the image by:
identifying an active region and a reference region of the image sensor, and
averaging values of pixels in the reference region to compute the offset,
apply the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels; and
bin subsets of the set of pixels to generate an updated image, the updated image having lower resolution than the image received from the image sensor (see substantively similar claim 1 rejection above).
Claim(s) 4, 9, 4, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Tsai and further in view of Lee et al. (US 20140146210 A1, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 4, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 2, except, further comprising estimating the amount of dark current based on an image taken with long exposure.
However, Lee discloses that long exposure images contain dark currents, which is desirable to be removed (¶0027).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ikedo in view of Tsai, with the teaching of Lee such that estimating the amount of dark current based on an image taken with long exposure, because, being exposed for long time, long exposure images are susceptible to dark current issues, which is desirable to be removed for getting better quality images.
Regarding claim 9, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, except, wherein the image sensor is a CMOS sensor.
However, Lee discloses the image sensor is a CMOS sensor (¶0013, 0028, fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to use dark current estimation and mitigation in CMOS image sensor as disclosed by Lee, because. combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Regarding CRM claim(s) 14, 19, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the method claim(s) 4, 9 respectively as described above.
Claim(s) 5-6, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Tsai and further in view of Salcedo et al. (US 6774942 B1, hereinafter Salcedo).
Regarding claim 5, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 2, except, wherein computing an offset for the image sensor further comprises:
identifying hot pixels in the reference region; and
ignoring values of the hot pixels in computation of the offset.
However, Salcedo discloses, identifying and eliminating hot pixels in optical black area for dark current estimation and mitigation (Col. 1, lines 63-67).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ikedo in view of Tsai. With the teaching of Salcedo of identifying and eliminating hot pixels in optical black area for dark current estimation and mitigation, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious. Furthermore, such combination improves the accuracy of the dark current estimation and compensation.
Regarding claim 6, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, except, wherein applying the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels comprises, for each pixel, subtracting the offset from a value of the pixel.
However Lee discloses, applying the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels comprises, for each pixel, subtracting the offset from a value of the pixel (¶0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Ikedo in view of Tsai, with the teaching of Lee of subtracting the offset from a value of the pixel, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Regarding CRM claim(s) 15-16, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the method claim(s) 5-6 respectively as described above.
Claim(s) 7, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Tsai and further in view of Moody et al. (US 20070069142 A1, hereinafter Moody).
Regarding claim 7, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, except, further comprising applying a flat-field correction technique to each pixel in the set of pixels.
However, Moody discloses, applying a flat field correction to reduce fixed pattern noise caused by differences in pixel structure response (claim 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to apply the dark current estimation and correction method for reducing fixed pattern noise caused by differences in pixel structure response in a flat field correction scenario as disclosed by Moody, because, combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results is obvious.
Regarding CRM claim(s) 17, although wording is different, the material is considered substantively equivalent to the method claim(s) 7 as described above.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Tsai and further in view of SWIHART et al. (US 20170332001 A1, hereinafter SWIHART).
Regarding claim 10, Ikedo in view of Tsai discloses the method of claim 1, except, wherein the image is a Western Blot image.
However, SWIHART discloses that Western Blot image (¶0060), can potentially be marred with dark current (¶0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to estimate and eliminate dark current from a Western Blot image, because, according to SWIHART, Western Blot image contains noise caused by dark images, and approach disclosed by Ikedo in view of Tsai can remove noises caused by dark current from images. The result can be achieved by combining prior art elements ready to be improved according to known method to yield predictable results, which is obvious.
Conclusion
The prior and/or pertinent art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, are –Hidehiko et al. (US 20100091144 A1), UKITA et al. (US 20100060768 A1), who disclose dark current mitigation techniques using optical black pixels.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHBAZ NAZRUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1467. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th: 9.30 am-3 pm, 6.30 pm-9 pm, F: 9.30 am-1.30 pm, 4 pm-8 pm.
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 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.
/SHAHBAZ NAZRUL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638