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 § 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 [1-16] 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. Claims [1 and 9] recites a substantially same limitation “determining, by the processor, whether a change in the at least one capture setting has occurred since capturing the first image frame, ” However it is not clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how the processor determines whether a change in the at least one capture setting has occurred since capturing of the first image frame, in each of the respective claims. Thus the limitation makes the claim as a whole vague and unclear. Appropriate correction consistent to applicant’s disclosure is required.
Claims[2-8] fails to cure the deficiency of claim [1], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
Claims[10-16] fails to cure the deficiency of claim [9], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning.
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.
Claim(s) [1, 3-5, 8-9, 11-13 and 16] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a1) as being anticipated by Topalli (US. 2019/0379832).
Reclaim [1], Topalli discloses a method for a camera system (see fig. 3, all steps), the method comprising: generating, by a processor, a set of control parameters for an image sensor to capture a first image frame (see ¶0024, a heterogeneous set of camera settings that together may be used to set the camera. Example settings may include the time of day, exposure adjustments, ISO, aperture size, shutter speed, flash settings, colour balance, saturation and the like [camera setting used to capture a previous frame]) , wherein the set of control parameters correspond to at least one capture setting (see ¶0024, a heterogeneous set of camera settings that together may be used to set the camera. Example settings may include the time of day, exposure adjustments, ISO, aperture size, shutter speed, flash settings, colour balance, saturation and the like); and determining, by the processor, whether a change in the at least one capture setting has occurred since capturing the first image frame (see ¶0049, ¶0024, a heterogeneous set of camera settings that together may be used to set the camera. Example settings may include the time of day, exposure adjustments, ISO, aperture size, shutter speed, flash settings, colour balance, saturation and the like [ by the virtue of identifying a setting closer to alive image in the previously captured frame settings]), wherein a first subsequent image frame is captured using the set of control parameters for the first image frame when no change in the at least one capture setting has occurred (see ¶0050, this way, previously learned correlations between a group of the user's prior photographs and the settings used to take them can be utilized to select current settings in response to the current live image [ when a previously used setting is used a current setting, which implies no change in setting).
Reclaim [3], Topall further discloses, wherein the at least one capture setting comprises zoom factor, exposure settings, ambient lighting conditions, capture mode, and/or scene content (see ¶0024, Example settings may include the time of day, exposure adjustments, ISO, aperture size, shutter speed, flash settings, colour balance, saturation and the like).
Reclaim [4], Topalli further discloses, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, the at least one capture setting (see ¶0049, The correlation processor is then configured to identify stored respective camera settings most closely correlating to the live image characteristics) .
Reclaim [5], Topalli further discloses, further comprising: storing the set of control parameters in a storage device (see ¶0065, comprises a first memory 120 configured to store a plurality of respective camera settings previously used by a user of a camera when capturing previous images); and retrieving the set of control parameters from the storage device, such that the first subsequent image frame using the retrieved set of control parameters (see s step 350 fig. 3).
Reclaim [8], Topall further discloses, wherein the image sensor is configured to operate in a plurality of modes, each mode associated with different sensor parameters (see¶0024, . Example settings may include the time of day, exposure adjustments, ISO, aperture size, shutter speed, flash settings, colour balance, saturation and the like [implies the image sensor can operate in different parameter operating mode]).
Reclaim [9], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [1], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [1] above.
Reclaim [11], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [3], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [3] above.
Reclaim [12], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [4], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [4] above.
Reclaim [13], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [5], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [5] above.
Reclaim [16], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [8], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [8] above.
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.
Claim(s) [2, 6, 10 and 14] is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Topalli (US. 2019/0379832) in view of Noorkami (US. 2015/0222799).
Reclaim [2], Topalli doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses when the change in the at least one capture setting has occurred: generating, by the processor, a new set of control parameters for the image sensor to capture a second subsequent image frame
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Noorkami discloses an imaging system as Topalli (see Noorkami Fig. 6). Noorkami further discloses when the change in the at least one capture setting has occurred (scene changes or brightness for example as disclosed in the text of ¶0005): generating, by the processor, a new set of control parameters for the image sensor to capture a second subsequent image frame (see ¶005, Auto exposure algorithms aim to adjust the camera's exposure time to minimize overexposed and underexposed areas. This functionality is needed since cameras are only capable of measuring a limited range of the total illumination in the scene (i.e., cameras have limited dynamic range). To capture bright areas, a shorter exposure time is needed; otherwise, the image will be overexposed or saturated (white). On the other hand, in dark areas a longer exposure time is needed; otherwise, the image will be underexposed or black. The goal of AE algorithms is to find the optimal exposure for the scene being captured. When capturing video, this is typically done using a control loop that analyzes incoming video frames and provides estimates of the best exposure time to capture subsequent frames).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify Topalli before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by the teachings of Noorkami for example, by reconfiguring Topalli and embedding the imaging system of Noorkami in Topalli since this would allow to analyzes incoming video frames and provides estimates of the best exposure time to capture subsequent frames (see ¶0005).
Reclaim [10], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [2], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [2] above.
Reclaim [6], Topalli doesn’t seem to explicitly discloses , further comprising: monitoring one or more capture settings in the set of capture settings; comparing the monitored capture settings against predetermined thresholds or previous values; and recalculating the set of control parameters when at least one of monitored capture settings exceeds corresponding predetermined threshold or deviates from a previous value by more than a specified amount.
Nonetheless in the same field of endeavor Noorkami discloses an imaging system as Topalli (see Noorkami Fig. 6). Noorkami further discloses monitoring one or more capture settings in the set of capture settings (see¶0005, the AWB algorithm is usually employed on a per-frame basis to account for scene changes. Auto exposure algorithms); comparing the monitored capture settings against predetermined thresholds or previous values; and recalculating the set of control parameters when at least one of monitored capture settings exceeds corresponding predetermined threshold or deviates from a previous value by more than a specified amount (see ¶0005 For video, the AWB algorithm is usually employed on a per-frame basis to account for scene changes. Auto exposure algorithms aim to adjust the camera's exposure time to minimize overexposed and underexposed areas. This functionality is needed since cameras are only capable of measuring a limited range of the total illumination in the scene (i.e., cameras have limited dynamic range). To capture bright areas, a shorter exposure time is needed; otherwise, the image will be overexposed or saturated (white). On the other hand, in dark areas a longer exposure time is needed; otherwise, the image will be underexposed or black. The goal of AE algorithms is to find the optimal exposure for the scene being captured. When capturing video, this is typically done using a control loop that analyzes incoming video frames and provides estimates of the best exposure time to capture subsequent frames, [by the virtue of monitoring imaging parameter per-frame and recomputing optimum camera setting for a subsequent image to be capture]).
Hence it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have been motivated to modify Topalli before the effective filling date of the claimed invention by the teachings of Noorkami for example, by reconfiguring Topalli and embedding the imaging system of Noorkami in Topalli since this would allow to analyzes incoming video frames and provides estimates of the best exposure time to capture subsequent frames (see ¶0005).
Reclaim [14], except a few changes in wording has substantially same limitation as claim [6], and thus analyzed and rejected by the same reasoning as claim [6] above.
Allowable Subject Matter
5 . Claims [7 and 15] 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.
Examiner note: claims [7 and 15] will be allowable if the claims are re-written by overcoming the above 112(b) rejection consistent to applicant’s disclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED A BERHAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5094. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00Am-5:00pm (MAX- Flex).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/AHMED A BERHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639