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 (lDS) submitted on December 3, 2025, and the IDS submitted on June 3, 2026, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and are being considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawings
Figures 3A, 3B, 4A, 4B and 5 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (i.e., “conventional”). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 14, 16-20 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by WIPO Patent Application No. WO 2023/136169 to Kaizu et al. (hereinafter “Kaizu”; employing U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0016464 as a translation; also see the Dutch Patent Office Action included with the IDS dated June 3, 2026).
Regarding claim 1, Kaizu teaches a method for generating images via an image sensor, the method comprising generating a first high dynamic range (HDR) image having a first exposure time (e.g., fig. 30, exposure 30L; [0228]), generating a second HDR image having a second exposure time (e.g., fig. 30, exposure 30S; [0228]), and performing a vehicle-based function using the first and/or the second HDR image (e.g., [0259], outside vehicle detection), wherein the second exposure time is shorter than the first exposure time (e.g., [0228]), and wherein the first and the second HDR images are generated having a time offset with respect to one another that is no greater than the second exposure time (e.g., [0228]).
Regarding claim 2, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first and the second HDR images are generated by repeatedly reading (i) first integrated HDR exposure data associated with the first HDR image, and (ii) second integrated HDR exposure data associated with the second HDR image, from different respective rows of a pixel array of an image sensor until the first integrated HDR exposure data and the second integrated HDR exposure data have been read from each row of the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30; [0227-231]).
Regarding claim 3, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 3 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the reading of the first integrated HDR exposure data of a first row in the pixel array is performed concurrently with the reading of the second integrated HDR exposure data associated with a second row in the pixel array (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]).
Regarding claim 4, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 4 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 2, supra) including teaching wherein the first integrated HDR exposure data is read from a first row in the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30, 30L; [0229]), the second integrated HDR exposure data is read from a second row in the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30, 30S; [0229]), and the first row and the second row are read from rows positioned within the pixel array based on the second exposure time (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]; the Examiner notes that the term “based on” is broad and only requires minimal association provided by operation).
Regarding claim 5, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the first HDR image is generated by iteratively reading, for each row in a pixel array of an image sensor, first HDR exposure data at a first predetermined time after a first HDR integration time reset is performed for each respective row, and the second HDR image is generated by iteratively reading, for each row in the pixel array of the image sensor, second HDR exposure data at a second predetermined time after reading the first HDR exposure data (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]).
Regarding claim 6, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 6 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the second predetermined time is based on the second exposure time (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]; the Examiner notes that the term “based on” is broad and only requires minimal association provided by operation).
Regarding claim 14, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 14 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) including teaching wherein the vehicle-based function comprises object classification (e.g. [0259]).
Regarding claim 16, Kaizu teaches a vehicle (e.g., fig. 42; [0254-259]), comprising an image sensor (e.g., [0259-260]) configured to generating a first high dynamic range (HDR) image having a first exposure time (e.g., fig. 30, exposure 30L; [0228]), generating a second HDR image having a second exposure time (e.g., fig. 30, exposure 30S; [0228]), and a controller (e.g., fig. 41, element 12000; [0256-259]) configured to perform a vehicle-based function using the first and/or the second HDR image (e.g., [0259], outside vehicle detection), wherein the second exposure time is shorter than the first exposure time (e.g., [0228]), and wherein the first and the second HDR images are generated having a time offset with respect to one another that is no greater than the second exposure time (e.g., [0228]).
Regarding claim 17, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 17 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching wherein the image sensor is configured to generate the first and the second HDR images by repeatedly reading (i) first integrated HDR exposure data associated with the first HDR image, and (ii) second integrated HDR exposure data associated with the second HDR image, from different respective rows of a pixel array of the image sensor until the first integrated HDR exposure data and the second integrated HDR exposure data have been read from each row of the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30; [0227-231]).
Regarding claim 18, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 18 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 17, supra) including teaching wherein the image sensor is configured to read the first integrated HDR exposure data of a first row in the pixel array concurrently with the reading of the second integrated HDR exposure data associated with a second row in the pixel array (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]).
Regarding claim 19, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 17, supra) including teaching wherein the first integrated HDR exposure data is read from a first row in the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30, 30L; [0229]), the second integrated HDR exposure data is read from a second row in the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30, 30S; [0229]), and the first row and the second row are read from rows positioned within the pixel array based on the second exposure time (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]; the Examiner notes that the term “based on” is broad and only requires minimal association provided by operation).
Regarding claim 20, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 20 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) including teaching wherein the image sensor is configured to generate the first HDR image by iteratively reading, for each row in a pixel array of the image sensor, first HDR exposure data at a first predetermined time after a first HDR integration time reset is performed for each respective row, and generate the second HDR image by iteratively reading, for each row in the pixel array of the image sensor, second HDR exposure data at a second predetermined time after reading the first HDR exposure data (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]), wherein the second predetermined time is based on the second exposure time (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]; the Examiner notes that the term “based on” is broad and only requires minimal association provided by operation).
Regarding claim 26, Kaizu teaches a high dynamic range (HDR) imager, comprising an HDR image sensor (e.g., [0259-260]), and a controller (e.g., fig. 2, element 25; [0098]) configured to control a configuration of the HDR image sensor to cause the HDR imager to generate a first HDR image having a first exposure time (e.g., fig. 30, exposure 30L; [0228]), and generate a second HDR image having a second exposure time (e.g., fig. 30, exposure 30S; [0228]), wherein the second exposure time is shorter than the first exposure time (e.g., [0228]), wherein the first and the second HDR images are generated having a time offset with respect to one another that is no greater than the second exposure time (e.g., [0228]).
Regarding claim 27, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 27 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 26, supra) including teaching wherein the controller is configured to control the configuration of the HDR image sensor to generate the first and the second HDR images by repeatedly reading (i) first integrated HDR exposure data associated with the first HDR image, and (ii) second integrated HDR exposure data associated with the second HDR image, from different respective rows of a pixel array of the HDR image sensor until the first integrated HDR exposure data and the second integrated HDR exposure data have been read from each row of the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30; [0227-231]).
Regarding claim 28, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 28 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 27, supra) including teaching wherein the controller is configured to control the configuration of the HDR image sensor to read the first integrated HDR exposure data of a first row in the pixel array concurrently with the reading of the second integrated HDR exposure data associated with a second row in the pixel array (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]).
Regarding claim 29, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 29 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 27, supra) including teaching wherein the first integrated HDR exposure data is read from a first row in the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30, 30L; [0229]), the second integrated HDR exposure data is read from a second row in the pixel array (e.g., fig. 30, 30S; [0229]), and the first row and the second row are read from rows positioned within the pixel array based on the second exposure time (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]; the Examiner notes that the term “based on” is broad and only requires minimal association provided by operation).
Regarding claim 30, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 30 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 27, supra) including teaching wherein the controller is configured to control the configuration of the HDR image sensor to
generate the first HDR image by iteratively reading, for each row in a pixel array of the HDR image sensor, first HDR exposure data at a first predetermined time after a first HDR integration time reset is performed for each respective row, and generate the second HDR image by iteratively reading, for each row in the pixel array of the HDR image sensor, second HDR exposure data at a second predetermined time after reading the first HDR exposure data (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]), wherein the second predetermined time is based on the second exposure time (e.g., [0229]; also see [0086-100]; the Examiner notes that the term “based on” is broad and only requires minimal association provided by operation).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaizu.
Regarding claim 7, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 7 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the first exposure time of the first HDR image is at least 11 milliseconds, and wherein the second exposure time of the second HDR image is no more than 3 milliseconds.
Nevertheless, exposure time is a matter of design choice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have selected exposure times that allowed for both bright and dark image capture, in a time frame that allowed for processing and response when used in a vehicle setting that requires fast timing. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense" KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claims 8, 15, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaizu in view of Chinese Patent Publication No. CN101170650A to Xi et al. (hereinafter “Xi”; machine translation provided).
Regarding claim 8, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 1, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose the method further comprising selectively adjusting the first exposure time of the first HDR image and/or the second exposure time of the second HDR image based upon a predetermined condition being satisfied.
Nevertheless, Xi teaches a similar HDR method that adjusts an exposure time of an image is an average brightness condition is not satisfied (e.g., pp. 4-6; claims 7-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Xi with the method as taught by Kaizu in order to create an image within a desired brightness range, allowing for a more visibly appealing image or an easier identifiable object.
Regarding claim 15, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 15 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 14, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the object classification comprises classifying a light source based upon a comparison of the first and the second HDR image (Kaizu does teach classification, e.g. [0259]; note, an object reflects light, and is therefore a light source).
Nevertheless, Xi teaches a similar HDR method that makes a comparison of a first and a second HDR image to adjust a brightness (e.g., pp. 4-6; claims 7-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Xi with the method as taught by Kaizu in order to create an image a desired brightness, allowing for a more visible (not too light, not too dark) image for object classification (The Examiner notes that the term “based upon” only requires a minimal association).
Regarding claim 21, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 21 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to selectively adjust the first exposure time of the first HDR image and/or the second exposure time of the second HDR image based upon a predetermined condition being satisfied.
Nevertheless, Xi teaches a similar HDR device that adjusts an exposure time of an image is an average brightness condition is not satisfied (e.g., pp. 4-6; claims 7-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Xi with the method as taught by Kaizu in order to create an image within a desired brightness range, allowing for a more visibly appealing image or an easier identifiable object.
Regarding claim 25, Kaizu teaches all of the limitations of claim 25 (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claim 16, supra) except for being found by the Examiner to expressly disclose wherein the vehicle-based function comprises classifying a light source based upon a comparison of the first and the second HDR image (Kaizu does teach classification, e.g. [0259], and an object that reflects light is a light source).
Nevertheless, Xi teaches a similar HDR method that makes a comparison of a first and a second HDR image to adjust a brightness (e.g., pp. 4-6; claims 7-10). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the teachings of Xi with the method as taught by Kaizu in order to create an image a desired brightness, allowing for a more visible (not too light, not too dark) image for object classification (The Examiner notes that the term “based upon” only requires a minimal association).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 and 22-24 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GARY C VIEAUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7318. The examiner can normally be reached Increased Flex.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/GARY C VIEAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights