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 .
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oike (US Pat. No. 8, 908, 065) in view of Kiser et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 951, 888 hereinafter referred as Kiser).
Regarding claim 1, Oike discloses a video control device comprising:
a storage that temporarily stores pixel data output from an imaging
a processor configured to:
as a development processing unit, output video data obtained by performing development processing including demosaicing processing on the pixel data stored in the storage for generating the video data (see figures 3, 11 and col. 5 lines 46-56 various kinds of signal processing such as noise reduction; see col. 10 line 65-col. 11 line 30 luminance values of the video signal are acquired; see also col. 2 lines 31-42),
record the video data in a recording mode in which both of the video data and the pixel data stored in the storage are used as a recording data, and control the imaging sensor to perform imaging with a second exposure value that is different from a first exposure value (see col. 9 lines 19-31, a high sensitivity image frame equivalent to a long exposure period and a low-sensitivity image frame equivalent to a short exposure period are alternately outputted from the chip 30; one of the high-sensitivity image frame and the low-sensitivity image frame outputted from the chip 30 earlier is temporarily stored in the video-signal storing area 411 including a frame memory; low sensitivity image is an image with short exposure period and high sensitivity is an image in a long exposure period; see col. 9 lines 60-67 when the first video signal as the high-sensitivity image read out earlier, temporarily store pixel values of plural rows of the low-sensitivity image to be read out next in storage medium, and use the pixel values to predict a blooming amount from pixel values pf peripheral pixels; see col. 10 lines 1-5 storing only video frames necessary for calculation are stored in the video-signal storing area; see col. 11 lines 22-30 when it is judged that the pixel of interest is a pixel not suffering blooming, the correction processing is not executed; when it is judged that the pixel of interest is the pixel suffering blooming, the pixel of interest is set as a pixel to be corrected and a pixel j to be saturated during an exposure period; see also see col. 9 lines 32-38).
Claim 1 differs from Oike in that the claim further requires the said first exposure value corresponding to the BT.709.
In the same field of endeavor Kiser discloses controlling the imaging sensor to perform imaging with a first exposure value corresponding to the BT.709 (see col. 5 lines 16-40 a plurality of sensors arranged to receive an incoming beam of light and split the beam of light ; the sensor include at least high exposure sensor and middle exposure sensor; the optical splitting system allows the apparatus to capture HDR images using most of the light entering the camera; when light impinges upon the sensors, pixel values will stream onto the processor; see figure 5 ITU-R BT 709 curve; see col. 6 lines 9-66 using ITU-R BT 709 transfer function).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Kiser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Oike by specifically corresponding exposure value to BT. 709 in order to utilize a color gamut that resembles real-world colors captured from cameras that record HD content or HDR content and to make images more realistic.
Regarding claim 2, Kiser discloses the second exposure value is lower than the first exposure value (see figure 5; col. 5 lines 16-40). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kiser discloses an image processing related to brightness is different between an imaging process corresponding to the second exposure value and an image processing corresponding to the first exposure corresponding to the BT. 709, and the image processing being included in the development processing (see col. 6 lines 9-64 and col. 7 lines 16-47). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Kiser discloses a mode switch control unit controls an increase amount of brightness of the video data due to the image processing related to the brightness to be larger than an increase amount of brightness of the video data due to the image processing related to the brightness corresponding to the BT. 709 (see col. 6 line 23-col. 7 line 63 and col. 8 lines 21-50). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5-6, the limitation of claims 5-6 can be found in claim 1 above. Therefore, claims 5-6 are analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. See also Oike’s col. 11 lines 1-8, col. 11 line 63-col. 12 line 5; and Kiser’s col. 5 lines 9-15.
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 1-6 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 and 25 of U.S. Patent No. 12262157 in view of Kiser et al. (US Pat. No. 10, 951, 888). See the reasons set forth below.
Regarding claim 1, the Patent application claim 1 recites A video control device comprising: a storage that temporarily stores pixel data output from an imaging sensor; and a processor configured to: as a development processing unit, output video data obtained by performing development processing including demosaicing processing on the pixel data stored in the storage for generating the video data, and as a mode switch control unit, switch between a first recording mode in which only the video data out of the video data and the pixel data stored in the storage is used as recording data and a second recording mode in which both of the video data and the pixel data stored in the storage are used as the recording data, and control the imaging sensor to perform imaging with different exposure values between the first recording mode and the second recording mode.
Claim 1 differs from the Patent application in that the claim further requires the said first exposure value corresponding to the BT.709.
In the same field of endeavor Kiser discloses controlling the imaging sensor to perform imaging with a first exposure value corresponding to the BT.709 (see col. 5 lines 16-40 a plurality of sensors arranged to receive an incoming beam of light and split the beam of light ; the sensor include at least high exposure sensor and middle exposure sensor; the optical splitting system allows the apparatus to capture HDR images using most of the light entering the camera; when light impinges upon the sensors, pixel values will stream onto the processor; see figure 5 ITU-R BT 709 curve; see col. 6 lines 9-66 using ITU-R BT 709 transfer function).
Therefore, in light of the teaching in Kiser, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Patent application by specifically corresponding exposure value to BT. 709 in order to utilize a color gamut that resembles real-world colors captured from cameras that record HD content or HDR content and to make images more realistic.
Regarding claim 2, Kiser discloses the second exposure value is lower than the first exposure value (see figure 5; col. 5 lines 16-40). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Kiser discloses an image processing related to brightness is different between an imaging process corresponding to the second exposure value and an image processing corresponding to the first exposure corresponding to the BT. 709, and the image processing being included in the development processing (see col. 6 lines 9-64 and col. 7 lines 16-47). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 4, Kiser discloses a mode switch control unit controls an increase amount of brightness of the video data due to the image processing related to the brightness to be larger than an increase amount of brightness of the video data due to the image processing related to the brightness corresponding to the BT. 709 (see col. 6 line 23-col. 7 line 63 and col. 8 lines 21-50). The motivation to combine the references is discussed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5-6, the limitation of claims 5-6 can be found in Patent applications claims 13 and 25 recites the features of claims 5-6 respectively, and see also and claim 1 rejection above. Therefore, claims 5-6 are analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as discussed in claim 1 above. See also Oike’s col. 11 lines 1-8, col. 11 line 63-col. 12 line 5; and Kiser’s col. 5 lines 9-15.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN SHIBRU whose telephone number is (571)272-7329. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, THAI TRAN can be reached at 571 272 7382. 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.
/HELEN SHIBRU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2484