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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
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 1-16 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitations "the determining comprises", “the respective luminance allocation functions”, and “these functions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and therefore is rejected.
Claim 2 recites the limitations "the at least corresponding secondary grading functions", “the secondary grading functions”, and “these functions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “the determining”, “the respective luminance allocation functions”, “these functions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim also recites "are of" and “]]” as incomplete phrases, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claims 4-7 depend on claim 3 and therefore are rejected.
Claim 7 recites “identifying a location in based” as an incomplete phrase, and it is unclear what is being claims.
Claim 8 recites the limitations “the determining”, “the respective luminance allocation functions”, “these functions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim also recites "are of" and “]]” as incomplete phrases, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
Claim 9 depends on claim 8 and therefore is rejected.
Claim 10 recites the limitations "the first graded image", “the response luminance allocation functions”, and “these functions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 11-16 depend on claim 10 and therefore are rejected.
Claim 13 recites the limitations "the previous position" and “the next position”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim also recites “user interaction device is arranged select the previous position” as an incomplete phrase, and it is unclear what is being claimed.
Conclusion
Regarding claim(s) 1-16, taking into consideration the indefiniteness described in the 35 USC 112 rejection(s) above, no prior art could be found and applied as a prior art rejection.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pub. No. 20080095408 – directed to two different positions for images being captured with different amount of exposure wide dynamic range image generation
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS G GILES whose telephone number is (571)272-2824. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45AM-3:15PM EST (HOTELING).
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/NICHOLAS G GILES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
