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 .
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,244,918. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15 and 17-20 of Patent No. 12,244,938 contains every element of claims 21-40 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claim(s) of the instant application. Claims 21-40 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim.
Regarding claims 21 and 23,
Instant Application
Is met by U.S. Patent 12,244,918 claim 1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
estimating a scene brightness of a scene depicted in an image;
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated scene brightness is based at least on a measure of one or more color components of the image.
estimating a scene brightness of a scene depicted in an image,
the estimated scene brightness being based at least on a measure of one or more color components of the image;
estimating at least one illuminant color corresponding to the scene by applying a chromaticity weighting function based at least on the estimated scene brightness to adjust a contribution of one or more portions of the image to the scene brightness;
determining a chromaticity weighting function to apply to the image based
at least on the estimated scene brightness of the scene depicted in the image;
estimating at least one illuminant color corresponding to the scene by applying the
chromaticity weighting function to adjust a contribution of one or more portions of the
image;
and adjusting one or more values corresponding to the image based at least on the at least one illuminant color.
And adjusting one or more values corresponding to the image based at least on the at least one illuminant color.
Similarly claims 3-20 are similar to claims 2-16 of Patent 12,244,938.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5-6, 8, 9, 13-14, 16, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yu (US PGPUB 20200228769).
[Claim 1]
A method comprising:
estimating a scene brightness of a scene depicted in an image (Paragraph 45, As shown in FIG. 2, example inputs to gray-world AWB unit 25 includes Bayer grid (BG) statistics of the captured image, an exposure index (e.g., the brightness of the captured image));
estimating at least one illuminant color (Paragraph 17, determination of a lighting condition (sometimes referred to as the illuminant condition, current illuminant, or color temperature)) corresponding to the scene by applying a chromaticity weighting function based at least on the estimated scene brightness (Paragraph 83, fig. 5, AWB parameter determination unit 27 may combine the weighted values of the first and second illuminants, along with brightness information, to determine the current illuminant under which the image was captured. For example, the first and second illuminants are the same, AWB parameter determination unit 27 will select that illuminant. If the first and second illuminants are different, AWB parameter determination unit 27 will select the illuminant having the highest weight).
to adjust a contribution of one or more portions of the image to the scene brightness (Paragraph 55, Once the AWB gain is determined, adjustment process 42 may apply the determined AWB gain to the image. In particular, adjustment process 42 typically involves applying AWB gains to colorimetric channels (e.g., RGB) of the image. As an example, adjustment process 42 may determine a white reference area in the image, and then adjust that area as well as other areas of the image by applying selected gains (for that illuminant) on the color channels in order to improve the whiteness of the white reference area. The application of these gains to color channels may also improve color fidelity of areas of the image that exhibit highly saturated colors); and
adjusting one or more values corresponding to the image based at least on the at least one illuminant color (Paragraph 87, Image signal processor 6 may then determine AWB parameters based at least in part on the determined illuminant (106), and apply the AWB parameters to the image (108)).
[Claim 5]
The method of claim 1, wherein: the chromaticity weighting function comprises a plurality of weighting distributions (Paragraph 83); one or more individual weighting distributions of the plurality of weighting distributions are associated with a respective scene brightness (Paragraph 83); and the chromaticity weighting function is determined at least by: determining the estimated scene brightness of the scene depicted by the image; and determining a weighting distribution from the plurality of weighting distributions based at least on the estimated scene brightness (Paragraph 83).
[Claim 6]
The method of claim 5, wherein: the image comprises one or more pixels (Paragraph 33, Camera module 12 may comprise arrays of solid state sensor elements such as complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (CMOS) sensor elements, charge coupled device (CCD) sensor elements, or the like); one or more individual pixels of the one or more pixels comprise one or more values corresponding to at least one of one or more color channels or a luminance channel (Paragraph 33, Alternatively, or additionally, camera module 12 may comprise a set of image sensors that include color filter arrays (CFAs) arranged on a surface of the respective sensors); and the estimated scene brightness is determined based at least on the one or more values of the one or more pixels (Paragraph 45, As shown in FIG. 2, example inputs to gray-world AWB unit 25 includes Bayer grid (BG) statistics of the captured image, an exposure index (e.g., the brightness of the captured image), and auxiliary information, which may include depth information. The BG statistics represent the actual raw color values in the captured image in the Bayer domain. However, it should be understood that it is not necessary to use BG statistics, and instead, RGB values of each pixel after demosaicing may also be used by gray-world AWB unit 25).
[Claim 8]
The method of claim 1, wherein the adjusting the one or more values corresponding to the image based at least on the at least one illuminant color comprises: determining one or more corrective gains for two or more color channels of the image based at least on the illuminant color; and applying the one or more corrective gains to respective color channels of the image (Paragraph 18, In digital cameras, a white balance process may be applied to a captured image to adjust or remove the impact of the illuminance. The white balance process may involve application of white balance gains and/or scaling to respective colorimetric channels of the image (e.g., RGB, XYZ, or YUV color channels). The gains may be defined for the illuminant for the white balance process. White balance is a process used to correct for image sensor responses in order to better match an image with a user's perceptual experience of the object being imaged. As an example, the white balance process is designed to make gray objects actually appear gray in the processed image).
[Claims 17, 20]
Yu teaches image capture devices (e.g., digital cameras) are commonly incorporated into a wide variety of devices. In this disclosure, an image capture device refers to any device that can capture one or more digital images, including devices that can capture still images and devices that can capture sequences of images to record video. By way of example, image capture devices may comprise stand-alone digital cameras or digital video camcorders, camera-equipped wireless communication device handsets such as mobile telephones, cellular or satellite radio telephones, camera-equipped tablets or personal digital assistants (PDAs), computer devices that include cameras such as so-called “web-cams,” (real-time streaming) or any devices with digital imaging or video capabilities (Paragraph 2).
[Claims 9, 13-14, 16, 18]
These are apparatus and processor claims corresponding to method claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 1 respectively and are analyzed and rejected based upon method claims 1, 5, 6, 8 and 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US PGPUB 20200228769) in view of James (US PGPUB 20220390275).
[Claim 2]
Yu fails to teach wherein the estimated scene brightness is based at least on a measure of one or more color components of the image. However James teaches that to determine the current light level using the image, the system can determine the average relative luminance of the pixels in the image. For example, if the system captures black and white images, the relative luminance of a pixel can be the pixel value, where black is represented as zero and white is represented by a maximum value of 255. In another example, if the system uses a color camera devices, the system can calculate the relative luminance as a linear combination of the red, green and blue components of the pixel value, such as: 0.2126R+0.7152G+0.0722B, where R is the red value, G is the green value and B is the blue value for the pixel. In both cases, system can sum the pixel values and divide by the number of pixels to determine the average relative luminance of the pixels in the image (Paragraph 51).
Therefore taking the combined teachings of Yu and James, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have the estimated scene brightness is based at least on a measure of one or more color components of the image in order to reliably determine the scene brightness which leads to a more accurate determination of illuminant.
[Claims 10 and 19]
These are apparatus and processor claims corresponding to method claim 2 and are analyzed and rejected based upon method claim 2.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu (US PGPUB 20200228769) in view of Xiong et al. (US PGPUB 20090309995).
[Claim 3]
Yu fails to teach wherein the chromaticity weighting function comprises a weighting distribution around an approximated Planckian Locus. However Xiong teaches , the process uses the X.sub.i, Y.sub.i and Z.sub.i color matching values together with equations 3 and 4 to determine the (x.sub.i,y.sub.i) chromaticity coordinates for the pixel. Using the (x.sub.i,y.sub.i) chromaticity coordinates for the pixel, at block 412 the process determines the distance d.sub.i in chromaticity space between the (x.sub.i,y.sub.i) chromaticity coordinates of the pixel and the Planckian locus. With distance d.sub.i determined, at block 414 the process computes the pixel weight w.sub.i for that pixel according to a monotonically decreasing function, such as the one shown in equation 5 (Paragraph 26). Therefore taking the combined teachings of Yu and Xiong, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have been motivated to have the chromaticity weighting function comprises a weighting distribution around an approximated Planckian Locus in order to determine a weight for each pixel based on the distance between its x and y chromaticity values and the Planckian locus, determine red, green, and blue adjustments for each pixel using its weight, and apply a white balance adjustment to the red, green and blue values obtained from each pixel.
[Claim 4]
Yu teaches wherein the weighting distribution is parameterized by at least one of a color temperature or a tint (Paragraph 83, AWB parameter determination unit 27 may combine the weighted values of the first and second illuminants, along with brightness information, to determine the current illuminant under which the image was captured and Paragraph 17, determination of a lighting condition (sometimes referred to as the illuminant condition, current illuminant, or color temperature ).
[Claims 11, 12]
These are apparatus claim corresponding to method claims 3 and 4 and are analyzed and rejected based upon method claims 3 and 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
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. The prior art fails to teach or suggest “dividing the image into one or more windows; computing an average color for at least one individual window of the one or more windows; converting the average color of the at least one individual window into a chromaticity color space to obtain an average chromaticity for the at least one individual window; determining a weighting factor to be applied to the at least one individual window based on the average chromaticity of the at least one individual window; calculating an image color as a weighted average of the average color for the one or more windows using respective weighting factors determined for the one or more windows; converting the image color to the chromaticity color space to obtain an image chromaticity; and projecting the image chromaticity onto an approximated Planckian Locus to obtain the at least one illuminant color.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YOGESH K AGGARWAL whose telephone number is (571)272-7360. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30-6.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 5712727564. 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.
/YOGESH K AGGARWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights