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 2/5/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
However, it should be noted that an applicant's duty of disclosure of material and information is not satisfied by presenting a patent examiner with "a mountain of largely irrelevant [material] from which he is presumed to have been able, with his experience and with adequate time, to have found the critical [material]. It ignores the real-world conditions under which examiners work." Rohm & Haas Co. v. Crystal Chemical co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1573 [ 220 USPQ 289 ] (Fed. Cir.1983), cert. Denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). Patent applicant has a duty not just to disclose pertinent prior art references but to make a disclosure in such a way as not to "bury" it within other disclosures of less relevant prior art; see Golden Valley Microwave Foods Inc. v. Weaver Popcorn Co. Inc., 24 USPQ2d 1801 (N.D. Ind. 1992); Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 26 USPQ2d 1889, at 1899 (D.Del 1992); Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc. et al., 175 USPQ 260, at 272 (S.D. FI. 1972). See MPEP 2004 section 13 which states, “It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)”.
The examiner notes that 341 pages of prior art materials relating to co-related applications were submitted in the IDS. In reviewing the submitted references a plurality of references have been observed that appear to be unrelated to the overall disclosure of the invention in the present application (eg. IDS references US 6,246,226; 6,810,031; 4,832,518; 2002/0107750).
By initialing each of the cited references on the accompanying 1449 forms, or by not striking through the cited reference, the Examiner is acknowledging the submission of the submitted references and indicating that a cursory review has been made of the submitted references.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 6/30/2026 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, 12,445,736 and 12,621,757 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 31 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 31 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 32 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 32 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 33 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 33 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 34 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 34 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 35 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 35 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 36 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 36 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 37 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 37 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 38 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 38 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 39 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 39 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 40 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 40 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 41 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 41 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 42 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 42 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 43 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 43 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 44 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 44 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 45 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 45 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 46 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 46 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 47 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 47 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 48 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 48 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 49 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 49 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 50 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 50 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 51 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 51 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 52 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 52 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Claim 53 is provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claim 53 of copending Application No. 19/025,856. This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
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