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 Amendment
Claims 1-20 are pending. No claim is amended, cancelled or newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant primarily provides three arguments opining that the §103 rejection made in the previous Office Action is improper.
About the first point applicant argues –
First, the two references compute their respective offsets in different manners, such that neither reference, alone or in combination, teaches the claimed manner of computing the offset together with the claimed binning. In the independent claims, the claims recite three operations: computing the offset by averaging values of pixels in the reference region; applying the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels; and binning the offset-corrected pixels to generate the updated image. Binning does not contribute to computation of the offset; rather, binning operates on the pixels after the offset has already been applied to them.
Ikedo derives its offset from a dedicated reference region-an optical black (OB) pixel area having optically shielded photodiodes-that is physically distinct from the active light- receiving pixel area. See Ikedo, FIG. 4 and [0054]. Tsai, in contrast, has no such reference region; Tsai instead obtains its offset value from a preliminary pre-scan of the same active sensing area that is subsequently imaged, and then performs binning on the second-scan data according to that offset value. See Tsai, [0010]-[0012].
Accordingly, neither Ikedo nor Tsai, alone or in combination, supplies any teaching, suggestion, or reason to arrive at this particular ordering, in which a reference-region-derived offset is first applied to individual pixels and the offset-corrected pixels are only then binned.
[See Applicant’s remarks of 6/29/2026, p. 6-7]
Examiner agrees with Applicant’s point that the mode of operation as is claimed and disclosed in the specification indicates “binning operates on the pixels after the offset has already been applied to them”. And Examiner contends that, Tsai is added or combined with Ikeda reference in similar fashion, as guided by the claim structure itself. Applicant goes at lengths in arguing how the offset of Ikedo is related to that of Tsai’s, while there is no need for such extraneous endeavor(s), since that is not how the flow and structure of the independent claims suggest or how Examiner made the combination of the reference. Examiner wrote in the combination section –
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].
[See Office Action of 3/31/2026, p. 4]
In the combination Examiner did not mention anything about how the offsets and scans of the two references could potentially mean and meet with one another or likes thereof. Therefore, the way of combining the reference is plain and simple, i.e., the structure and flow of the claim limitation(s) itself act as the principal guide for the combination, unless stated specifically otherwise by the Examiner. Thus, Examiner agrees with the premise set by the Applicant that ‘binning’ as recited in the independent claims ‘is applied on the offset-corrected pixels to generate the updated image.’
Examiner showed that first part of the claim 1, e.g., until the limitation, “applying the offset to each pixel in the set of pixels” – is found as a whole in a single module in Ikedo (see page 3 of the previous Office Action of 3/31/2026).
Thereafter, Examiner declared that the following portion, i.e., ‘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.’ – as a whole, is not found in Ikedo but found in Tsai. Then Examiner combined the references together with a guidance declarative of “binning pixels as necessary” – indicating an easy, successive and modular cascading of the references (see page 4 of the previous Office Action of 3/31/2026). Thus, under such obvious combination, the references seamlessly combines, and no confusion arises from the combination. After combination each element of Ikedo and Tsai merely performs the same function as it does separately [see MPEP § 2141.I.A].
Applicant argues in second and third raised points as follows,
Second, as a counter rationale to the proposed combination, the proposed combination would change the principle of operation of the primary reference Ikedo. See MPEP § 2143.01(VI) ("[i]f the proposed modification or combination of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious"). Ikedo performs its black-level correction on a row-by-row basis. Ikedo computes a correction value as a difference between the dark-current amount of a normal row and that of an autofocus row, and a correction value based on an average black level is then subtracted from a pixel signal that has been output from a normal row. See Ikedo, [0101] and [0146]. Ikedo applies its correction to individual pixel signals organized by row. Tsai, by contrast, performs pixel binning that collapses groups of pixels into a single binned value-for example, combining four adjacent pixels into one output value (BO = (AO+A1+A2+A3)/4). See Tsai, FIG. 2 and [0018].
Incorporating Tsai's binning into Ikedo would require collapsing pixels across rows into combined values before Ikedo's row-by-row correction could be applied, thereby destroying the per-row pixel organization on which Ikedo's correction scheme depends. This alteration of Ikedo's operation destroys the motivation to combine the two references as asserted.
Third, as another counter point, the proposed modification that would render the primary reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or that would change its principle of operation, does not support a conclusion of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143.01(V) ("[i]f a proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there may be no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification"). Ikedo's intended purpose is to accurately correct the black level of individual pixel signals on a row-by- row basis, using a correction value derived from a dedicated reference region and applied to each pixel signal of a normal row before the image is output.
Combining Ikedo's row-by-row schema with Tsai's binning would combine pixel signals across rows. Each row's ability to be used for its separate intended purpose is now lost, because Tsai's binning collapses the pixel values across rows. See Ikedo, [0045] ("[a] row where an A image signal and a B image signal are read out of each unit pixel 100 is referred to as 'AF row'... [a] row where an A+B image signal is read out of each unit pixel 100 is referred to as 'normal row"'). Because combining Tsai's binning with Ikedo would frustrate Ikedo's row-by- row correction and defeat its intended purpose, one of ordinary skill would not have been led to make the combination.
Examiner does not agree with Applicant’s arguments and conclusions drawn therefrom. Here also, same rebuttal rationales provided above for first raised point above applies, and incorporation of Tsai’s binning into Ikedo does not cause any collapsing of the pixels across rows. Rather Ikedo operates as a whole as a module to remove dark current from pixels of active region by applying determined offset on the pixel to attain offset free image. Then binning is applied according to disclosure of Tsai on the offset corrected image developed from the active region of the image sensor. Since each block of Ikedo and Tsai operates independently the modular combination thereof does not change the principle of operations of the primary as well as the secondary references or cause any collapsing of the pixels across rows as applicant contends. The combination also likewise is not rendered inoperative. Important to note as mentioned before that, Ikedo and Tsai is combined to support functionalities disclosed therein in a cascaded manner, such that once offset is removed, a binning process is performed on the dark current free image, so that overall SNR in the low-resolution image is improved.
Therefore, based on the arguments provided above, Examiner contends that the rejection made in the previous Office Action is proper, which is repeated here.
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights