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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 8/13/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Accordingly, the rejections stand.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on Pages 10-13, Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 8/13/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive whereby Examiner has provided additional citation to the prior art of record to read upon newly amended limitations. Accordingly, the rejections stand. Examiner respectfully submits the prior art of record reads upon at least Claim 1 as recited and construed. Regarding the Claims 1, 11, and 15 amendments containing ‘over other colors’, said limitation is unclear as to what constitutes the set of colors to overlook/ignore as ‘other’ (See rejection under 35 U.S.C section 112b contained herein). Examiner additionally submits the combination of HUNTER in view of GAO is a reasonable combination of prior art references to read upon said claims. Examiner has established a prima facie case of obviousness for combining the prior art of record to reject the pending outstanding rejected claims as well as establishing the motivation to do so in light of the recitation and construing of said claims. Accordingly, the rejections stand for the independent as well as dependent claims.
FINAL REJECTION
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-20, respectfully, of U.S. Patent 12,262,123 (hereinafter ‘123) in view of HUNTER (Pub. No: US 2007-0182845). This is a non-provisional double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have issued to patent. Although the conflicting claim limitations are not recited identically, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they claim the same invention except for the following:
As per Claims 1-20, ‘123 does not claim but HUNTER discloses pixel color-skew metrics (Figs. 1-5 skew saturation value levels for an individual pixel color of interest [0042-0043] [0045-0047]); pixels skew (Figs. 1-5 skew saturation value levels for an individual pixel color of interest [0042-0043] [0045-0047]); update based on the color-skew metric (Figs. 1-5 update for a frame auto-exposure target based upon color values and required settings [0029-0032] [0042-0043]) over other colors ( Figs. 1-5 an individual color/pixel of interest – others colors are not addressed [0042-0043] [0045-0047])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include pixel color-skew metrics; pixels skew; update based on the color-skew metric over other colors as taught by HUNTER into the system of ‘123 because of the benefit taught by HUNTER to provide additional detailed image analysis to include analysis at image pixel level in a color correction/compensation system which is in the same field of endeavor as ‘123 and will improve said system in disclosing precise image pixel value color analysis for better image outcome.
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 pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 1, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, 15 each recite ‘over other colors’ whereby it is unclear what constitutes a set of colors to overlook/ignore as ‘other’, i.e. all possible colors available or just for the set of possible colors within the scope of the instant invention. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 10-11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNTER (Pub. No: US 2007-0182845) in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No.: US 20120067956).
As per Claim 1 HUNTER discloses An apparatus comprising (Figs. 1-5 [Abstract]): one or more hardware processors (Figs. 1-5 [0009-0010]); and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to (Figs. 1-5 [0009-0010] [0032-0033]):
determine pixel color-skew metrics for a plurality of pixels in an image frame, the pixel color-skew metrics indicative of an extent to which the plurality of pixels skew to a particular color (Figs. 1-5 skew saturation for the pixels - value levels for an individual color/pixel of interest [0042-0043] [0045-0047]) over other colors (Figs. 1-5 an individual color/pixel of interest – others colors are not addressed [0042-0043] [0045-0047]);
determine, based on the pixel color-skew metrics (Figs. 1-5 individual pixel color as well as adaptive luminance target control [0030-0032] [0042-0043] [0045-0047]) and weight values associated with the plurality of pixels (Figs. 1-5 center weighted influence of pixels in the target/ROI [0035-0039] [0042-0043]), a color-skew metric for the image frame (Figs. 1-5 skew saturation value [0030-0032] [0042-0043] [0045-0047]); and update, based on the color-skew metric (Figs. 1-5 process times updated due to color skew [0030-0032] [0037-0039] [0042-0043] [0045-0047])
HUNTER do not disclose but GAO discloses update one or more auto-exposure parameters for use by an image capture system to capture an additional image frame (Figs. 1-9 exposure time for the subsequent frames [0039] [0070])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include update one or more auto-exposure time parameter for use by an image capture system to capture an additional image frame as taught by GAO into the system of HUNTER because of the benefit taught by GAO to analyze and update for next exposure settings as well as the current whereby HUNTER does not specifically disclose subsequent related sequence exposure updates which would improve and extended related features.
As per Claim 10 HUNTER discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to update based on the color-skew metric (See said analysis for Claim 1):
HUNTER do not disclose but GAO discloses update one or more of an exposure time parameter, a shutter aperture parameter, an illumination intensity parameter, or a luminance gain parameter (Figs. 1-9 update exposure time for the subsequent frames [0039] [0070]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 10)
As per Claim 11 HUNTER discloses A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors of a computing device to (Figs. 1-5, 9 [0009-0010] [0032-0033] computing device [0061]):
determine pixel color-skew metrics for a plurality of pixels in an image frame (See said analysis for Claim 1), the pixel color-skew metrics indicative of an extent to which the plurality of pixels skew to a particular color (See said analysis for Claim 1) over other colors (See said analysis for Claim 1);
determine, based on the pixel color-skew metrics and weight values associated with the plurality of pixels (See said analysis for Claim 1), a color-skew metric for the image frame (See said analysis for Claim 1); update based on the color-skew metric (See said analysis for Claim 1)
HUNTER do not disclose but GAO discloses update one or more auto-exposure parameters for use by an image capture system to capture an additional image frame (See said analysis for Claim 1).
As per Claim 15 HUNTER discloses A method comprising (Fig. 1 [Abstract]):
determining, by a computing device (See said analysis for Claim 11), pixel color-skew metrics for a plurality of pixels in an image frame, the pixel color-skew metrics indicative of an extent to which the plurality of pixels skew to a particular color (See said analysis for Claim 1) over other colors (See said analysis for Claim 1)
determining, by the computing device (See said analysis for Claim 11), based on the pixel color-skew metrics and weight values associated with the plurality of pixels, a color-skew metric for the image frame (See said analysis for Claim 1); updating by the computing device and based on the color-skew metric (See said analysis for Claim 11)
HUNTER do not disclose but GAO discloses update one or more auto-exposure parameters for use by an image capture system to capture an additional image frame (See said analysis for Claim 1).
Claims 2, 12, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNTER (Pub. No: US 2007-0182845) in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No.: US 20120067956), as applied in Claims 1, 10-11, 15 and further in view of MICOVIC et al. (US Pub. No: 2016-0093029) in view of LEE et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020-0351524).
As per Claim 2 HUNTER discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determining the color-skew metric for the image frame includes (See said analysis for Claim 1):
HUNTER and GAO do not disclose but MICOVIC discloses normalizing color data representative of the image frame (Figs. 1-7 [0057-0059] [0061-0062] [0064]); decomposing the color data to distinguish a chrominance property of the color data from a luminance property of the color data (Figs. 1-7 separated chroma [0028] [0043] and luminance processing and properties [0052] [0056-0062] [0064]); determining an extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color (Figs. 1-7 causing the saturation for the color of interest/under test/SNR etc. [0017] [0056-0062] [0064]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include normalizing color data representative of the image frame; decomposing the color data to distinguish a chrominance property of the color data from a luminance property of the color data; determining an extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color as taught by MICOVIC into the system of HUNTER and GAO because of the benefit taught by MICOVIC to disclose additional advanced color data processing and analysis to improve and complement the systems of HUNTER and GAO as both relate to image exposure-related techniques and improvements which is further by the teachings herein.
HUNTER GAO MICOVIC do not disclose but LEE discloses and based on the determining the extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color, determining the color-skew metric (Figs. 1-3 chroma values effecting the color skew saturation [0053-0054] [0068, 0070-0072 [0082-0083])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and based on the determining the extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color, determining the color-skew metric as taught by LEE into the system of HUNTER GAO MICOVIC because of the benefit taught by LEE to add to the processing features and advancements of HUNTER GAO MICOVIC as improvements relate to color/exposure concerns that effect the image quality outcome and this additional feature further extends related improvements.
As per Claim 12 HUNTER discloses The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the determining the color-skew metric for the image frame includes (See said analysis for Claim 2):
HUNTER and GAO do not disclose but MICOVIC discloses normalizing color data representative of the image frame (See said analysis for Claim 2); decomposing the color data to distinguish a chrominance property of the color data from a luminance property of the color data (See said analysis for Claim 2); determining an extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color (See said analysis for Claim 2);
HUNTER GAO MICOVIC do not disclose but LEE discloses and based on the determining the extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color, determining the color-skew metric (See said analysis for Claim 2).
As per Claim 16 HUNTER discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the determining the color-skew metric for the image frame includes (See said analysis for Claim 2):
HUNTER and GAO do not disclose but MICOVIC discloses normalizing color data representative of the image frame (See said analysis for Claim 2); decomposing the color data to distinguish a chrominance property of the color data from a luminance property of the color data (See said analysis for Claim 2); determining an extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color (See said analysis for Claim 2);
HUNTER GAO MICOVIC do not disclose but LEE discloses and based on the determining the extent to which the chrominance property of the color data skews to the particular color, determining the color-skew metric (See said analysis for Claim 2).
Claims 8, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNTER (Pub. No: US 2007-0182845) in view of GAO et al. (Pub. No.: US 20120067956), as applied in Claims 1, 10-11, 15 and further in view of RAINIS (US Pub. No: 20210-007810).
As per Claim 8 HUNTER discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
HUNTER and GAO do not disclose but RAINIS discloses the image capture system includes an endoscopic image capture device configured to capture the image frame as part of an image frame sequence captured during a performance of a medical procedure on a body (Figs. 1-4 scope with image captures [0006-0007] [0036-0037] [0058-0059] [0062-0065]); the image frame depicts an internal view of the body (Figs. 1-4 [0006-0007] [0036-0037] [0058-0059] [0062-0065]); and the particular color comprises a red color (Figs. 1-4 [0006-0007] [0058-0059] [0062-0065])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the image capture system includes an endoscopic image capture device configured to capture the image frame as part of an image frame sequence captured during a performance of a medical procedure on a body; the image frame depicts an internal view of the body; and the particular color comprises a red color as taught by RAINIS into the system of HUNTER and GAO because of the benefit taught by RAINIS to extend the user of color and exposure processing in the medical field and endoscope area that requires color and exposure quality image processing and would naturally add to the extended capabilities of said included systems.
As per Claim 19 HUNTER discloses The method of claim 15, wherein: HUNTER and GAO do not disclose but RAINIS discloses the image capture system includes an endoscopic image capture device configured to capture the image frame as part of an image frame sequence captured during a performance of a medical procedure on a body (See said analysis for Claim 8); the image frame depicts an internal view of the body (See said analysis for Claim 8); and the particular color comprises a red color (See said analysis for Claim 8).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the 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, and but for the rejections under 35 U.S.C section 112(b) and outstanding double patenting rejections contained herein.
Claims 3-7, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding 35 U.S.C section 112(b) and double patenting rejections contained herein. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the determining the color-skew metric for the image frame further includes: assigning, based on spatial positions of the plurality of pixels within the image frame, the weight values to the plurality of pixels within the image frame; and determining, based on the pixel color-skew metrics and the assigned weight values, the color-skew metric for the image frame as a weighted average of the pixel color-skew metrics" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine a raw frame auto-exposure target based on the image frame captured by the image capture system; determine a scaling value as an output of an adaptive target control function given an input of the color-skew metric; and determine a frame auto-exposure target by scaling the raw frame auto-exposure target by the scaling value" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the color-skew metric given as the input does not exceed a color-skew threshold; the output of the adaptive target control function comprises a null scaling value; and the determining the frame auto-exposure target includes determining the frame auto-exposure target to equal the raw frame auto-exposure target" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 6 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The apparatus of claim 4, wherein: the color-skew metric given as the input exceeds a color-skew threshold; the output of the adaptive target control function comprises a reductive scaling value; and the determining the frame auto-exposure target includes determining the frame auto-exposure target to equal the raw frame auto-exposure target reduced based on the reductive scaling value" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 7 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the determining the color-skew metric includes determining the color-skew metric to correspond to a value selected from a set of discrete values that each correspond to a different scaling value output by the adaptive target control function" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 9 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine a frame auto-exposure value of the image frame; and determine, based on the frame auto-exposure value and the color-skew metric, a frame auto-exposure gain; and the updating the one or more auto-exposure parameters is based on the frame auto-exposure gain" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the determining the color-skew metric for the image frame further includes: assigning, based on spatial positions of the plurality of pixels within the image frame, the weight values to the plurality of pixels within the image frame; and determining, based on the pixel color-skew metrics and the assigned weight values, the color-skew metric for the image frame as a weighted average of the pixel color-skew metrics" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 14 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 11, wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the one or more processors to: determine, based on the image frame captured by the image capture system, a raw frame auto-exposure target; and determine a frame auto-exposure target by scaling the raw frame auto-exposure target by an output of an adaptive target control function given an input of the color-skew metric" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 17 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, wherein the determining the color-skew metric for the image frame further includes: assigning, based on spatial positions of the plurality of pixels within the image frame, the weight values to the plurality of pixels within the image frame; and determining, based on the pixel color-skew metrics and the assigned weight values, the color-skew metric for the image frame as a weighted average of the pixel color-skew metrics" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 18 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, further comprising: determining a raw frame auto-exposure target based on the image frame captured by the image capture system; determining a scaling value as an output of an adaptive target control function given an input of the color-skew metric; and determining a frame auto-exposure target by scaling the raw frame auto-exposure target by the scaling value" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 20 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, further comprising determining, by the computing device based on a frame auto-exposure value and a frame auto-exposure target based on the color-skew metric, a frame auto-exposure gain; wherein the updating the one or more auto-exposure parameters comprises updating, based on the frame auto-exposure gain, one or more of: an exposure time parameter, a shutter aperture parameter, or an illumination intensity parameter" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record HUNTER (Pub. No: US 2007-0182845) for Claims 3-7, 9, 13-14, 17-18, 20 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. HUNTER only discloses an apparatus that determines a color-skew metric for an image frame captured by an image capture system, the color-skew metric indicative of an extent to which the image frame skews to a particular color, determines based on the color-skew metric.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is (571) 270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 7:30-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights