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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/6/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 5/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. Patent Numbers: 9,137,455; 9,160,936; 9,167,169; 9,918,017; 10,382,702; 10,652,478; 11,025,831; 12,003,864; 12,401,911 and 12,445,736 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 31 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 32 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 33 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 34 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 29 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 35 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 37 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 36 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 37 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 116 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 37 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 116 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 121 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 38 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 121 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 122 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 39 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 122 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 40 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 123 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 40 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 123 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 41 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 124 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 41 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 124 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 42 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 125 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 42 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 125 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 43 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 126 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 43 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 126 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 44 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 44 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 127 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 45 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 45 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 128 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 46 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 129 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 46 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 129 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 47 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 130 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 47 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 130 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 48 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 131 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 48 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 131 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
Claim 49 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 132 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 49 of the instant application is a broader recitation and an obvious variation of claim 132 of U.S. Patent No. 12,621,575.
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 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.
Claims 31, 50 and 52-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McMahon et al. US 2013/0147979.
Re claim 31, McMahon discloses an apparatus (array camera and image sensor array) (figures 4-4JA), comprising: an image sensor including a plurality of cells including: a first cell having a first photodiode generating a first analog signal, and a second cell having a second photodiode generating a second analog signal, for being utilized to generate at least a portion of one or more line analog signals that correspond to a line of cells of the image sensor (pixel array 410 includes a plurality of cells including first and second cells) (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); a line in communication with the plurality of cells, the line communicating the one or more line analog signals (column circuit 414 selects pixels from which analog image information is read out) (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); a first analog-to-digital channel (418) in communication with the line, the first analog-to- digital channel capable of receiving at least one of the one or more line analog signals for conversion thereof to a first line digital signal (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); a second analog-to-digital channel (419) in communication with the line, the second analog- to-digital channel capable of receiving at least one of the one or more line analog signals for conversion thereof to a second line digital signal (figures 4-4JA; paragraphs 109-117, 140); and circuitry in communication with the first analog-to-digital channel (418) and the second analog-to-digital channel (419), the circuitry capable of receiving at least one of the first line digital signal or the second line digital signal, for image generation (interface circuitry is configured to transmit digital image data to an external device) (figures 1,1B; paragraphs 65-69).
Re claim 50, McMahon further discloses that the image generation results in a first high dynamic range image, and further generates a second high dynamic range image, wherein the apparatus is configured such that the at least portion of the first high dynamic range image and the at least portion of the second high dynamic range image are combined (array camera 100 includes an imager array 110 with multiple different image sensors and multiple different images can be captured and gains can be applied to change the captured dynamic range) (paragraphs 61-68).
Re claim 52, McMahon further discloses that the apparatus is configured to generate resulting HDR image by combining first, second and third HDR images (array camera 100 includes an imager array 110 with multiple different image sensors and multiple different images can be captured and gains can be applied to change the captured dynamic range) (paragraphs 61-68).
Re claim 53, McMahon further discloses that the apparatus is configured such that one or more signals that are representative of a single exposure of a single photographic scene and that are utilized to generate a first HDR image via the image generation, is subject to at least four different gains (array camera 100 includes an imager array 110 with multiple different image sensors and multiple different images can be captured and multiple different gains can be applied to change the captured dynamic range) (paragraphs 61-68).
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, 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 51 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMahon et al. US 2013/0147979 in view of Atkinson US 2011/0317005.
Re claim 51, McMahon discloses all of the limitations of claim 31 above. However, McMahon fails to specifically disclose that the apparatus is configured to detect an amount of ambient light and based on the detected ambient light, either a first or second gain is applied in connection with image generation to generate a first high dynamic range image.
Atkinson discloses that it is well known in the digital imaging art for an image capturing device to include an automatic gain control circuit 255 that adjusts a gain value as detected ambient lighting conditions change (paragraph 15). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus disclosed by the McMahon reference to include a dynamic gain adjustment based on detected ambient light as disclosed by the Atkinson reference. Doing so would provide a means for adjusting the gain applied to a captured image based on ambient lighting conditions in order to capture image signals of acceptable image quality.
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.
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