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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimers filed on 2/17/2026 and 5/8/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Application Nos. 19/409,564, 18/646,581 and U.S. Patent Nos. 9,137,455; 9,167,169; 9,918,017; 10,382,702; 10,652,478; 11,025,831; 12,003,864 and 12,316,978 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/5/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 64 is objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 64, line 4, please delete “image” and replace it with “image.”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 86 is 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.
Claim 86 recites the limitation "the at least one non-transitory memory" in lines 58 and 59. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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.
Claim 61 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 61 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 62 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 62 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 2 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 63 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 63 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 3 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 64 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 64 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 4 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 65 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 65 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 5 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 66 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 66 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 6 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 67 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 67 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 7 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 68 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 68 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 8 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 69 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 69 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 9 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 70 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 70 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 10 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 71 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 71 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 11 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 72 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 72 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 12 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 73 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 73 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 13 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 74 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 74 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 14 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 75 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 75 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 15 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 76 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 76 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 16 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 77 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 77 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 17 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 78 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 78 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 18 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 79 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 79 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 19 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 80 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 80 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 20 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 81 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 81 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 21 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 82 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 22 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 82 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 22 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 83 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 23 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 83 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 23 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 84 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 84 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 24 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 85 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 25 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 85 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 25 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 86 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 26 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 86 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 26 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 87 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 87 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 27 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 88 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 28 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 88 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 28 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 89 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 29 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 89 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 29 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 90 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 30 of copending Application No. 19/559,706. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 90 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 30 of copending Application No. 19/559,706.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Jannard et al. US 2012/0069213 discloses an imaging device including a user interface including a slider to allow a user to adjust blending parameters.
Prentice US 2011/0150357 discloses an imaging device including a touch screen user interface for adjusting exposure time and initiating image capture.
Rasker US 2007/0025717 discloses an apparatus for capturing a plurality of images with different exposure times and combining the images into a high dynamic range image.
Kwon et al. US 8,977,073 discloses an apparatus to blend images captured with different exposure settings into a high dynamic range image.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kelly L. Jerabek whose telephone number is (571) 272-7312. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (8:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. The fax phone number for submitting all Official communications is (571) 273-7300. The fax phone number for submitting informal communications such as drafts, proposed amendments, etc., may be faxed directly to the Examiner at (571) 273-7312.
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 .
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KELLY L JERABEK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
Prosecution Insights