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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,260,534 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims.
US 12,260,534 B2
Current App. 19/056,259
Claim 1: A method of detecting a blemish in a digital camera, the method comprising:
Claim 1: A method of detecting a blemish in a digital camera, the method comprising:
Capturing a digital image of a white area by the digital camera;
capturing a digital image of a white area by the digital camera;
Reducing resolution of the digital image by grouping pixels of the digital data into a matrix of a plurality of data block; and
reducing resolution of the digital image by grouping pixels of the digital data into a matrix of a plurality of data block; and
Comparing a luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to an average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks within a predetermined region to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block;
comparing a luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to an average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks within a predetermined region to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block;
Wherein the luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks equals (0.2126*R)+(0.7152*G)+(0.0772*B), where R, G, and B are the average red, green, and blue color values for digital image pixels within the data block.
wherein the luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks equals includes an average red, green, and blue color value for digital image pixels within the data block.
Comparing a luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to an average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks within a predetermined region to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block;
Claim 2: identifying the potentially bad data block as a blemish if the total number of potentially bad data blocks around the potentially bad data block exceeds a threshold; and
Claim 5: wherein a difference between the luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to the average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks must exceed a predetermined value to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block.
Claim 6: comparing each of a plurality of data blocks that collectively include all of the digital data of the digital image to determine if a difference in luminance values of other of the plurality of data blocks exceeds a predetermined threshold, the threshold indicating a possible blemish.
Claim 2 of the present application is anticipated by claim 2 of the patented claims.
Claim 3 of the present application is anticipated by claim 3 of the patented claims.
Claim 4 of the present application is anticipated by claim 4 of the patented claims.
Claim 5 of the present application is anticipated by claim 5 of the patented claims.
Claim 6 of the present application is anticipated by claims 1, 2, and 5 of the patented claims.
Claim 7 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of the patented claims.
Claim 8 of the present application is anticipated by claim 3 of the patented claims.
Claim 9 of the present application is anticipated by claim 2 of the patented claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an average red, green, and blue color value” is recited. However, is unclear if this is intended to be interpreted as (1) one combined average, or (2) separate average red, average green, and average blue values. The specification supports the latter, see [009]. The examiner respectfully suggests amending the claim along the lines of “an average red, average green, and average blue color value.”
Claims 1 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “into a matrix of a plurality of data block” is grammatically awkward. Further, the limitation renders claim 3 redundant, as it fails to specify a further limitation, see 35 USC 112(d). Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite “the digital data.” The preceding claims do not include a prior recitation of “digital data.” The examiner assumes “the digital data” corresponds to the digital image pixels/image of preceding claims 1 and 6. The examiner respectfully suggests aligning the claim language. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 5 currently reads “wherein a difference between [X] to [Y] must exceed…”. A cleaner phrasing could be, “wherein a difference between [X] and [Y] must exceed...”. Correction is respectfully suggested.
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 1-9 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “includes”, and the claim also recites “equals” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-5 depend from claim 1, and are therefore also rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 6 recites “comparing each of a plurality of data blocks that collectively include all of the digital data of the digital image to determine if a difference in luminance values of other of the plurality of data blocks.” The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: what is compared to what to determine a difference. For example, claim 1 clearly recites that “a luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks” is compared to “an average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks.” Claims 7-9 depend from claim 6, and are therefore also rejected. Appropriate correction is required.
Further, the term “all of the digital data” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “all” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The examiner is unsure what “all” of the digital data encompasses. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “identifying each of the plurality of data blocks with a luminance value that exceeds the threshold as a potentially bad data block,” while preceding claim 6 recites, “wherein a difference … must exceed a predetermined value to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block.” Claim 6 determines a block to be potentially bad based on a determined difference exceeding a threshold, while claim 9 appears to determine a block to be potentially bad simply based on a luminance value exceeding a threshold. As such, the bounds of the thresholds are unclear. The examiner respectfully suggests correcting claim 9 along the lines of: “identifying each of the plurality of data blocks with the difference in luminance values that exceeds the threshold”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai (CN112583999A), and in further view of Kang (KR20150014717A).
Consider claims 1 and 6, Lai discloses A method of detecting a blemish in a digital camera (¶1, FIG. 2; “an image processing technique, and more particularly to a method for detecting lens contamination in a camera module”), the method comprising:
capturing a digital image of a white area by the digital camera (¶50-51; “camera module 100 can be an … digital camera… Figure 3, which is a schematic diagram of an image generated by a camera module 100 capturing a white background template”);
reducing resolution of the digital image by grouping pixels of the digital data into a matrix of a plurality of data block (¶57-63, FIG. 6; “multiple adjacent pixels are combined to form a block 61”; ¶82-84); and
comparing a luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to an (¶58-62; “a brightness average value is calculated for the brightness values of multiple pixels in each block 61 (step S209)… image processing apparatus 200 adds up the brightness values of each pixel in each block 61 and divides them by the number of pixels in each block 61 to calculate the average brightness of each block 61, as shown in Equation 3… a brightness gradient between each block 61 and its neighboring blocks 61 is calculated (step S211)… image processing device 200 determines whether the brightness gradient of the block 61 is greater than a brightness threshold value (step S213). When the brightness gradient of block 61 is greater than the brightness threshold value, the image processing device 200 determines that block 61 with a brightness gradient greater than the brightness threshold value is a dirt 10 (step S215)”);
wherein the luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks equals includes an average red, green, and blue color value for digital image pixels within the data block (¶52-54; Y = 0.299*R + 0.587*G + 0.114*B……(Equation 1); Y = 0.333*R + 0.333*G + 0.333*B……(Equation 2)).
[claim 6: comparing each of a plurality of data blocks that collectively include all of the digital data of the digital image to determine if a difference in luminance values of other of the plurality of data blocks exceeds a predetermined threshold, the threshold indicating a possible blemish (¶58-62; “a brightness average value is calculated for the brightness values of multiple pixels in each block 61 (step S209)… image processing apparatus 200 adds up the brightness values of each pixel in each block 61 and divides them by the number of pixels in each block 61 to calculate the average brightness of each block 61, as shown in Equation 3… a brightness gradient between each block 61 and its neighboring blocks 61 is calculated (step S211)… image processing device 200 determines whether the brightness gradient of the block 61 is greater than a brightness threshold value (step S213). When the brightness gradient of block 61 is greater than the brightness threshold value, the image processing device 200 determines that block 61 with a brightness gradient greater than the brightness threshold value is a dirt 10 (step S215)”).]
In related art, Kang explicitly discloses reducing resolution of the digital image by grouping pixels of the digital data into a matrix of a plurality of data block (Kang ¶27-37; Image reduction step, “An inspection image is reduced to a certain scale to generate an image for stain detection (S100)… the stain detection image is generated by dividing the inspection image into segmented images having n*m pixels that do not overlap each other”); and
comparing a luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to an average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks within a predetermined region to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block (Kang ¶37-58; Luminance difference detection step, “The actual luminance value of each pixel of the stain detection image generated through the aforementioned image reduction step (S100) is compared with the expected luminance value predicted from the luminance value of surrounding pixels to detect the luminance difference (S200)… expected luminance value is calculated using the average value of the left and right pixels of the pixel under inspection… expected luminance value (P(l)) for the second zone (200) is calculated as follows; ¶59-65; Stain Indication stage, “the actual luminance value generated as an average luminance value in the image for stain detection is smaller than the expected luminance value calculated through the luminance difference detection step (S200), and the difference is determined to be stain (1) only when the difference is greater than a preset threshold”).
Lai is directed to detecting lens contamination, and states, “when detecting dirt on a lens, the image captured by the camera module through the lens is usually processed to highlight the dirt for easier identification. However, this image processing method will also highlight the interference patterns in the image (such as natural patterns), which will affect the detection of dirt (for example, it may cause incorrect judgments in dirt detection) (Lai ¶3-4).” In related art, Kang, directed to detecting blemishes (stains) in images caused by lens contamination, states “At this time, there were difficulties in detecting stains because, when a stain is displayed on an image captured by a camera module, it must be detected by visual judgment. Therefore, it is important to reduce the processed image to pixel units that are divided into specific dimensions so that stains displayed on the image can be easily detected (Kang ¶4-5).” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the explicit reduction and averaging techniques of Kang into the lens contamination detection method of Lai to predictably facilitate accurate blemish detection.
Consider claim 3 and 8, Lai, as modified by Kang, discloses the claimed invention wherein the pixels of the digital data are grouped into a matrix of data blocks (Lai ¶57-64, 82-84; Kang ¶5, 27-37).
Consider claim 4, Lai, as modified by Kang, discloses the claimed invention wherein the luminance value of each of the data blocks is calculated by averaging respective color values for red, green, and blue of all of the pixels within each data block and then using the resulting average red, average green, and average blue color values in a luminance conversion formula (Lai ¶52-54; 62; Kang ¶37-58).
Consider claim 5, Lai, as modified by Kang, discloses the claimed invention wherein a difference between the luminance value of each of the plurality of data blocks to the average luminance value of other data blocks of the plurality of data blocks must exceed a predetermined value to determine if each of the plurality of data blocks is a potentially bad data block (Lai ¶58-63; Kang ¶37-58).
Consider claim 7, Lai, as modified by Kang, discloses the claimed invention further comprising reducing the resolution of the digital image prior to the step of comparing (Lai ¶57-64, 82-84; Kang ¶5, 27-37).
Claims 2 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lai, in further view of Kang, as applied to claims 1 and 3-8 above, and further in view of Popat (Defect Detection and Classification Using Machine Learning Classifier).
Consider claims 2 and 9, Lai, as modified by Kang, while disclosing identifying the potentially bad data block as a blemish (Lai ¶58-62; Kang ¶37-58), fails to specifically disclose determining a total number of potentially bad data blocks within a predetermined region centered around each of the potentially bad data blocks;
identifying the potentially bad data block as a blemish if the total number of potentially bad data blocks around the potentially bad data block exceeds a threshold; and
identifying the potentially bad data block as not a blemish if the total number of potentially bad data blocks around the potentially bad data block does not exceed the threshold.
In related art, Popat discloses determining a total number of potentially bad data blocks within a predetermined region centered around each of the potentially bad data blocks (Popat Image Processing, Morphing);
identifying the potentially bad data block as a blemish if the total number of potentially bad data blocks around the potentially bad data block exceeds a threshold (Popat Image Processing, Morphing); and
identifying the potentially bad data block as not a blemish if the total number of potentially bad data blocks around the potentially bad data block does not exceed the threshold (Popat Image Processing, Morphing).
Kang, directed to detecting blemishes (stains) in images caused by lens contamination, states “At this time, there were difficulties in detecting stains because, when a stain is displayed on an image captured by a camera module, it must be detected by visual judgment. Therefore, it is important to reduce the processed image to pixel units that are divided into specific dimensions so that stains displayed on the image can be easily detected (Kang ¶4-5).” Popat is directed to identifying, counting, and reducing noise in an image (Popat Image Processing, Morphing). It would have been obvious to a POSITA to apply the same technique to the “potentially bad data blocks.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the majority morphing of Popat into the blemish determination of Lai, as modified by Kang, to predictably facilitate accurate blemish detection.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2003/0179418 A1 discloses a method for determining one or more defective pixels in an area array image sensor.
US 10,896,494 B1 discloses a method for correcting images including artifacts due to dirty camera lenses.
US 11,363,246 B2 discloses a raw image processing system and method.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY HYTREK whose telephone number is (703)756-4562. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Steve Koziol can be reached at (408)918-7630. 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.
/ASHLEY HYTREK/Examiner, Art Unit 2665
/Stephen R Koziol/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2665
