CTNF 19/300,687 CTNF 80159 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-25 Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application (JP2023-025924) filed in Japan on 22 February 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the application JP2023-025924 as required by 37 CFR 1.55. 23-19 AIA Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 11/12/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Drawings 06-22 AIA The drawings are objected to because : Above the figure numbers, the drawings contain an extraneous label (e.g. “1/13”, “2/13”, etc.) apparently indicating each of the thirteen pages of drawings. These labels should be removed . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). 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. Specification 06-01 AIA The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM. (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. Field of the Invention. Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system. The section entitled “DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS”, which corresponds to section (j) as described above, appears to end at paragraph [0108]. Paragraphs [0109]-[0133] appear to retread the description of the applicant’s claimed invention, but using claim language instead. Indeed, these paragraphs repeat verbatim many of the claims. As such, the inclusion of these paragraphs represents a redundancy in the applicant’s detailed description, particularly in light of applicant’s proper listing of the claims on a separate sheet. The applicant is, therefore, advised to remove paragraphs [0109] through [0133] from the specification. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-5 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent No. 10,512,512 B1, hereinafter referred to as Richmond et al . Regarding claim 1, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: An interface adapter ( cf. camera control unit 230 of Fig. 2 or camera control units 130R and 130L in Figs. 1A and 1B ) comprising: first communication interface for communicating with a scope including an imaging sensor and a light source device that generates illumination light for imaging by the imaging sensor ( cf. System Process Module 162 of Figs. 1A and 1B. Note that System Process Module 162 communicates with the endoscope 110 [Figs. 1A and 1B] via the camera control units depicted in Figs. 1A, 1B, and 2 . Left Image Sensor 121L or Right Image Sensor 121R in Figs. 1A and 1B or Camera 220 in Fig. 2 each constitute an imaging sensor(s). Light Source 111 of Richmond et al. Figs. 1A and 2B and Light Source 211 of Richmond et al. Fig. 2 constitute a light source device that generates illumination light for imaging by the imaging sensor ) a second communication interface for communicating with a portable information terminal having a user interface ( cf. Video Pipeline 140 in Figs. 1A and 1B or Video Pipeline 240 in Fig. 2, which constitutes a communication interface that communicates with Stereoscopic Display 151 in Fig. 1A and 1B or Display Unit 251 in Fig. B. Note that such displays are portable in the sense that they are “capable of being carried or moved about”, as the word “portable” is generally understood. A user interface is presented on the Display Unit 251 – cf. User Interface 161 in Figs. 1A and 1B and col. 10, lines 4-5 ); and a processor ( cf. Gain & Exposure Control Loop 131 of Figs. 1A and 1B or Auto-Exposure Module 232 of Fig. 2, noting that, according to Richmond et al., “it is to be appreciated that … controllers described [therein] may be implemented in practice by any number of modules and each module may include any combination of components. Each module and each component may include hardware, software that is executed on a processor, and firmware, or any combination of the three”, col 8, lines 35-42 ), wherein the processor causes the imaging sensor to perform imaging in a state in which a light amount of the illumination light is controlled to be constant ( scenes captured with endoscope 201 are maintained to a “consistent brightness”, Richmond et al., Abstract. ) converts a captured image signal obtained by the imaging sensor into image data that is displayable by the portable information terminal, and transmits the image data to the portable information terminal ( Captured frames are passed frame by frame as a video stream ultimately to the Gain & Exposure Module 131 or Auto-Exposure Module 232 of Figs. 1A-1B and Fig. 2, respectively. Frames, then move on, respectively, to the Video Pipeline 140 of Figs. 1A-1B or Video Pipeline 240 of Fig. 2, and finally to the Stereoscopic Display 151 or Display Unit 251, respectively. See Richmond et al. et al. col. 4, lines 49-56, col. 9, lines 38-67, and col. 20, lines 10-17 and note processing is for the purposes of making captured images displayable, as Richmond et al. suggests in col. 9, lines 66-67 ) derives a brightness of the image data based on the captured image signal, and controls an imaging sensitivity of the imaging sensor and an exposure time of the imaging sensor based on the brightness ( The histogram shown in Richmond et al. Fig. 3, is derived from brightness values of the captured image. Based on the brightness, the imaging sensitivity – i.e. video pipeline gain [Richmond et al. col. 3, line 8] – and exposure time of the imaging sensor [Richmond et al. col. 3, line 9] are controlled ), and the interface adapter is controlled by the user interface of the portable information terminal ( cf. Richmond et al., col. 4, lines 3-9 and col. 8, lines 24-26 ). Regarding claim 2, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: The interface adapter according to claim 1 ( see above ), wherein the processor increases, in a case where the exposure time is controlled to an upper limit value, a variation range of the imaging sensitivity compared to a case where the exposure time is controlled to be less than the upper limit value. ( The process shown in Fig. 5B, in particular with respect to the sub-processes 513 and 514, is detailed in Richmond et al. col. 15, lines 8-67 through col. 16, lines 1-28. The CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME 446 in Fig. 5B is limited to “the maximum exposure time”, Emax – Richmond et al. col. 15, lines 14-16. The VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN 445 is increased when CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME has reached its maximum level of Emax – i.e. the gain is the parameter used to increase the brightness of the image once the exposure time has reached its upper limit. The VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN is scaled by the ratio of ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS 444 to the average frame brightness, when the exposure time reaches the upper limit. This ratio is greater than one for instances described because the frame brightness is below the target brightness. Thus, when the exposure time reaches its upper limit, the gain is scaled such that it is greater the gain when the exposure time is less than the upper limit – cf. Richmond et al. col. 15, lines 32-37 and line 53 ). Regarding claim 3, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: The interface adapter according to claim 2 ( see above ), wherein the processor discretely changes the exposure time and continuously changes the imaging sensitivity (cf. Richmond et al. col. 14, lines 29-31. The exposure time is increased by “one fixed linear step” – i.e. discretely changes, when “discretely changes” is given its broadest reasonable interpretation. As noted above VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN is scaled by the ratio of the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to the average frame brightness. As such, it is adjusted continuously until the frame brightness reaches the target brightness ). Regarding claim 4, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: The interface adapter according claim 2 ( see above ) wherein the processor sets the exposure time to a different value for each of a plurality of ranges of the brightness ( cf. Regions 1-3 in Richmond et al. Fig. 6, noting that Regions 1, 2, and 3 are bounded by the First Exposure Threshold and Second Exposure Threshold, as shown, and the exposure time is adjusted – i.e. “set to different value” – accordingly; see Richmond et al., col. 17, lines 47-67 to col. 19, lines 1-44 ), and changes the imaging sensitivity within a range from a reference value to a value lower than an upper limit value of the imaging sensitivity in accordance with the brightness ( With respect to the VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN 445, note that Richmond et al. – in col. 15, lines 61-64, for example – suggests a floor for the VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN of 1. From that floor, VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN increases according to the brightness, as indicated by the ratio of ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to the average frame brightness, until the frame brightness matches the target brightness. See Richmond et al. col. 15, lines 8-67 through col. 16, lines 1-28. Thus, VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN occupies a range from a floor or “reference value” of 1 to an upper limit of VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN indicated when the frame brightness and target brightness become equivalent ). in a state in which the exposure time is set to be less than the upper limit value ( Note that Emax is defined as the maximum exposure time – Richmond et al. col. 15, lines 15-17 and Fig. 6. – and thus represents an upper limit value which the exposure time cannot exceed ) . Regarding claim 5, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: The interface adapter according to claim 1 ( see above ) wherein the processor performs amplification processing of amplifying the captured image signal, which is digital, output from the imaging sensor, ( VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN is a gain, which is generally understood to be quantity indicating a degree of amplification and the units of image data used in Richmond et al. are pixels – cf. col. 6, lines 26-27 – which implies that the images treated therein are digital ). and the imaging sensitivity is an amplification factor ( i.e. VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN ) set by the amplification processing. Regarding claim 12, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: The interface adapter according to claim 1 ( see above and note that Richmond et al. incorporates U.S. Patent No. 6,331,181, hereinafter Tierney et al., by reference ), wherein the interface adapter is fixed to a frame capable of accommodating the portable information terminal. ( Camera control unit 230 of Richmond et al. Fig. 2 or camera control units 130R and 130L in Richmond et al. Figs. 1A and 1B is/are fixed to the housing of control station 150, as shown in Tierney et al. Fig. 8B. Note that such a housing constitutes, essentially, a frame. As shown in Tierney et al. Fig. 8A, the stereo imaging system 154 is accommodated by the control station 150. Note that this imaging system is substantially equivalent to the Stereoscopic Display 151 shown in Richmond et al. Figs. 1A-1B and the Display Unit 251 shown in Richmond et al. Fig. 2, each of which constitutes a portable information terminal, as discussed above ) Regarding claim 13, when giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, Richmond et al. teaches: An endoscope system ( cf. the teleoperated surgical system 101A and 10B shown in Richmond et al. Figs. 1A and 1B, respectively, or teleoperated surgical system 200 shown in Richmond et al. Fig. 2, all of which are shown to include an endoscope ) comprising: the interface adapter according to claim 1 ( see the discussion above regarding claim 1 ); a frame capable of accommodating the portable information terminal ( see the discussion above regarding similar limitations of claim 12 ); and the scope ( cf. endoscope 101 shown in Richmond et al. Figs. 1A and 1B and endoscope 201 shown in Richmond et al. Fig. 2 ), wherein the interface adapter is fixed to the frame ( see the discussion above regarding similar limitations of claim 12 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim( s) 6 and 9 i s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R ichmond et al., in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0191379 A1 (hereinafter, Numata) . C laim 6 depends from claim 1. As previously discussed, Richmond et al. teaches or suggests all limitations of claim 1. Richmond et al. further discloses that its modules can be implemented using processors, hardware, firmware, or “well-known circuits” ( Richmond et al., col. 22, lines 47-67 to col. 23, lines 1-37 ). However, Richmond et al. does not specifically disclose that “the processor is a programmable logic device,” as required by claim 6. To address this limitation, Numata, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a CONTROL UNIT 13 that processes brightness information and performs automatic exposure correction analogous to Richmond et al. ( Numata ¶ [0045] ). Numata further teaches that the functional blocks (e.g., the processor) may be realized by hardware, including a field-programmable gate array (FPGA)—a type of programmable logic device ( Numata ¶ [0079] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to implement the processor (e.g., the Gain & Exposure Control Loop or Auto-Exposure Module of Richmond et al.) of the interface adapter disclosed by Richmond et al. as a programmable logic device such as an FPGA, as taught by Numata, to achieve the known benefits of such hardware implementations in digital signal processing, including reduced size and cost, improved reliability, high performance, and programmability. Regarding claim 9, Richmond et al., in view of Numata, has been shown to teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6. Richmond et al. further teaches that: the processor performs an arithmetic operation required to determine the brightness ( these operations have been discussed extensively above with respect to the preceding claims ). Neither Richmond et al. nor Numata explicitly disclose using a bit shift operation to determine the brightness. However, if the term “a bit shift operation” is given the broadest reasonable interpretation, then such bit shift operations are inherent to all arithmetic operations executed on a digital computing device, including programmable logic devices. One such operation is the propagation of a carry bit during typical implementations of binary arithmetic, including addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication. John L. Hennessy & David A. Patterson, Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach appendix J, at p. 48 (5th ed. 2012) – hereinafter, Hennessy et al. – is introduced, herein, to evidence the inherency of bit shift operations to the execution of arithmetic operations on digital computing devices. Specifically, Hennessy et al. shows carry bit propagation, a shifting of carry bits, are a fundamental aspect of addition and subtraction, as well as multiplication and division, which themselves utilize addition and subtraction is standard implementations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to implement the processor (e.g., the Gain & Exposure Control Loop or Auto-Exposure Module of Richmond et al.) of the interface adapter disclosed by Richmond et al. as a programmable logic device such as an FPGA, as taught by Numata, to achieve the known benefits of such hardware implementations in digital signal processing, including reduced size and cost, improved reliability, high performance, and programmability. Since standard implementations of binary arithmetic executed on digital computing devices necessitate bit shift operations, such as carry bit propagation, the resulting interface adapter would inherently possess the limitations set forth in claim 9 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond et al. and Numata , as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of E. E. Swartzlander and A. G. Alexopoulos, "The Sign/Logarithm Number System," in IEEE Transactions on Computers, vol. C-24, no. 12, pp. 1238-1242, Dec. 1975 (referred to, hereinafter, as Swartzlander et al.) Regarding claim 7, Richmond et al., in view of Numata, has been shown to teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 6, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Richmond et al., in view of Numata, teaches a processor, in keeping with the limitations of claim 6, that: performs arithmetic processing required to determine a combination of the imaging sensitivity and the exposure time for bringing the brightness close to a target brightness ( Richmond et al. teaches, as part of the disclosed methods for adjusting the brightness of the captured frames to match a target brightness, arithmetic relationships, which ultimately require arithmetic processing. This includes, inter alia, multiplying VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN by the ratio of the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to the average frame brightness, multiplying CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME by the same ratio, and utilizing the expressions in Richmond et al. col. 15, line 52 and col. 16 lines 25 ); However, while the arithmetic relationships disclosed in Richmond et al., show division and/or subtraction, those relationships would be understood, by a person of ordinary skill in the art, to be mathematical abstractions, not constraints on implementation. As such, it would be clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art that those relationships need not be implemented via arithmetic processing involving division. Nevertheless, neither Richmond et al. nor Numata, expressly teach or suggest that the processor: performs, among division and subtraction, only the subtraction as arithmetic processing required to determine a combination of the imaging sensitivity and the exposure time for bringing the brightness close to a target brightness. Swartzlander et al., from the same or similar field of endeavor, disclose a well-known method for logarithm number system conversion that replaces division operations with subtraction operations so that: among division and subtraction, only subtraction as arithmetic processing is performed ( cf. Swartzlander et al. page 1239, col. 2, lines 29-30, page 1240, col. 1. lines 31-34, and Fig. 2; Swartzlander et al. show that division operations become subtraction operations after conversion to the logarithmic number system ). Given the teachings of Swartlander et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to convert the brightness values ( Swartzlander et al. suggest applicability of the methods disclosed therein to image enhancement – cf. page 1239, col. 1, lines 1-3 ) , including the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS and the average frame brightness, as well as the brightness adjustment parameters, VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN and CAMERA EXPSOURE TIME, to a logarithmic number system. It is well-known in the art that division is computationally expensive when compared to other arithmetic operations and requires additional hardware complexity to accommodate. In embedded imaging pipelines and high-performance digital signal processing implementations, division operations are routinely avoided. Thus, one would be motivated to convert brightness values used in Richmond et al. to a logarithmic number system, as taught by Schwartzlander et al., so that subtraction of the converted values is done instead of division, thereby avoiding the substantial computational and hardware overhead associated with division operations, relative to subtraction operations . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond et al., Numata, and Swartzlander et al ., as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of EPO Patent Application Publication No. 0 225 488 A2 (referred to, hereinafter, as Mitchell et al.) Regarding claim 8, Richmond et al., in view of Numata, and in further view of Swartzlander et al. has been shown to teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 7. Richmond et al., in view of Numata, and in further view of Swartzlander et al. additionally teach: The interface adapter according claim 1, wherein, a value obtained by logarithmically converting each of a plurality of the exposure times settable in the imaging sensor is set as an exposure time logarithmic value ( Swartzlander et al. teaches a conversion to a logarithmic number system. When applied to the interface adapter of Richmond et al., conversion of the parameters Richmond et al. uses to achieve the target brightness would be necessary. These parameters include CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME, which is used to the adjust the exposure time of the camera – cf. Richmond et al. Fig. 4, noting that “to 220” refers to the camera 220 . CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME, when converted to the logarithmic number system, according to the conversion taught by Swartzlander et al., would constitute an exposure time logarithmic value ), and the processor derives a first subtraction value by subtracting a logarithmic conversion value of the brightness from a logarithmic conversion value of the target brightness ( According to well-known logarithmic identities, the ratio of the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to the average frame brightness, when converted to the logarithmic number system, in accordance to Swartzlander et al., would be expressed as a subtraction of the converted average frame brightness from the converted ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS ), selects one from among a plurality of the exposure time logarithmic values according to a magnitude of the first subtraction value ( As discussed above, with respect to claim 4, Richmond et al. teaches that the exposure time is to a different value for each of a plurality of ranges of the brightness – i.e. the Regions 1, 2, and 3 shown in Richmond et al. Fig. 6 – where these regions are characterized according to how the average frame brightness measures against the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS, as indicated by the ratio of ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to average frame brightness, which, as stated above, would be expressed as the first subtraction value after a logarithm number system conversion ) , derives a second subtraction value by subtracting the selected exposure time logarithmic value from the first subtraction value ( Richmond et al. teaches that the average frame brightness is a linear function of CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME – cf. Richmond et al. col. 15, line 25. Since, the gain, VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN, is expressed as the ratio of the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to the average frame brightness multiplied by the previous gain value, VIDEO PIPELINE GAIN for a current frame would involve further division of the ratio of the ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS to the average frame brightness by the exposure time, CAMERA EXPOSURE TIME, of a previous frame. That division, when expressed in the logarithmic number system disclosed by Swartzlander et al., would be a subtraction of the logarithmic number system conversion of that exposure time from the difference between the converted ADJUSTED TARGET BRIGHTNESS and the converted average frame brightness – i.e. the first subtraction value discussed above ). converting the selected exposure time logarithmic value into a setting value of the exposure time, and converts the second subtraction value into a setting value of the imaging sensitivity ( Conversion to a logarithmic number system necessitates a subsequent conversion of the converted values back to their original linear domain because devices, such as imaging sensors, generally expect and operate predictably on linear domain inputs ). While Swartzlander et al. suggests the usage of tables to facilitate the conversion from a linear domain to the logarithmic number system ( cf. Swartzlander et al. page 1240, col. 2, ¶1- 2 ), which, in turn, implies usage of similar tables to facilitate the conversion from a logarithmic number system to the linear domain, in which the inputs (i.e. setting values) to components such as cameras are typically expressed, none of Richmond et al., Numata, and Swartzlander et al. explicitly teach using conversion tables for converting the selected exposure time logarithmic value into a setting value of the exposure time and for converting the second subtraction value into a setting value of the imaging sensitivity Mitchell et al., from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches using conversion tables to convert logarithmic values to linear domain values ( cf. Mitchell et al. Abstract and pg. 3, lines 37-39. Mitchell et al. show using conversion tables – i.e. antilog tables – to facilitate conversion to and from the logarithmic domain. Mitchell et al. further teach application of their invention to “large image data files” – cf. Mitchell et al. pg. 15, line 10 ). Given the teachings of Mitchell et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use conversion tables (e.g. LUTs/antilog tables, as taught by Mitchell et al.) to facilitate conversion to and from the logarithmic domain (or logarithmic number system) in the interface adapter, such as the one taught by Richmond et al., and modified, as discussed above, in view of the teachings of Numata and Schwartzlander et al. The usage of lookup tables (LUTs) is common method for representing mathematical functions and their inverses, including logarithmic functions, in applications where a reduction of computational and hardware overhead is desirable. Using conversion tables, such as those taught by Mitchell et al., are known in the art to advantageously minimize the computational and hardware overhead associated mathematical computation, particularly those associated with non-linear mappings such as logarithmic functions . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richmond et al., in view of U.S. Patent No. 11,902,669 B1 (referred, hereinafter, as Sudret et al.) . Regarding claim 10, Richmond et al. has been shown to teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 1, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Richmond et al. does not, however, teach that the processor performs, as processing of converting the captured image signal into the image data, gamma correction processing based on gamma characteristics of a display unit of the portable information terminal, and generates, in the gamma correction processing, the image data such that an output value of the display unit in a case where a pixel value equal to or less than a first threshold value is input to the display unit is greater than the pixel value, and an output value of the display unit in a case where a pixel value exceeding the first threshold value is input to the display unit matches the pixel value. Sudret et al. , from the same or similar field of endeavor, discloses adaptive acquisition control methods, involving automatic adjustment of exposure time and gain to achieve a target exposure value, in manner broadly similar to analogous methods disclosed in Richmond et al.. Sudret et al. further discloses: performing, as processing of converting the captured image signal into the image data, gamma correction processing based on gamma characteristics of a display unit of the portable information terminal ( cf. auto-exposure compensation tone curve 900 of Sudret et al. Fig. 9 and described in Sudret et al. col. 61, lines 35-67 to Sudret et al. col. 62, lines 1-22. Application of the auto-exposure compensation tone curve is essentially gamma correction, producing an output on display unit, VISUAL OUTPUT 362, which accounts for the characteristics of the display unit; cf. Sudret et al. Fig. 3 and Sudret et al. col. 17, lines 62-64 ) , and generating, in the gamma correction processing, the image data such that an output value of the display unit in a case where a pixel value equal to or less than a first threshold value is input to the display unit is greater than the pixel value, and an output value of the display unit in a case where a pixel value exceeding the first threshold value is input to the display unit matches the pixel value ( cf. Sudret et al. Fig. 9, col. 55, lines 6-10, and col. 62, lines 21-22. Fig. 9 shows an auto-exposure compensation tone curve, which when applied, maps input luminances LUMA IN [values before tone correction] to output luminances, LUMA OUT, the latter being ultimately displayed on a display unit. Sudret et al. describe how, in alternative implementations of the auto-exposure compensation tone correction curve, the slope can be made null in the brightest part of the dynamic range – cf. Sudret et al. col. 55, lines 6-10 – suggesting that tone correction could be halted in the brightest regions of the dynamic range, in which case a one-to-one mapping of input luminance to output luminance would occur above the point – i.e. a first threshold value – determined to delineate the brightest part of the dynamic range, while tone correction according to the auto-exposure compensation tone correction curve would occur for luminance values below that first threshold value. Note that the “strait [sic] line” depicted in Sudret et al. Fig. 9 is an identity curve – cf. Sudret et al. col. 62, lines 21-22. For values below the first threshold, the auto-exposure compensation tone curve lies above the identity curve. Accordingly, an input luminance value, below the first threshold, maps to an output value on the vertical LUMA OUT axis that is greater than that the input value on the horizontal LUMA IN axis . With regard to “a case where a pixel value exceeding the first threshold value is input to the display unit”, note that the LUMA IN value corresponding to the control point P2, being at the upper boundary of the dynamic range would be greater than the first threshold and, because it lies on the aforementioned identity curve, as well as the tone correction curve, maps to an output luminance with the same value ). Given teachings of Sudret et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate tone correction as described by Sudret et al. into the camera control unit of Richmond et al. (i.e. an interface adapter in keeping with claim 1), in order to ameliorate sub-optimal image quality ( cf. Sudret et al. col. 7, lines 5-48 ) and to ensure that the dynamic range of the camera is properly mapped to that of the display. Regarding claim 11, Richmond et al., in view of Sudret et al., has been shown to teach and/or suggest all the limitations of claim 10, and are analyzed as previously discussed with respect to that claim. Sudret et al. further teaches: The interface adapter according to claim 10 wherein, in a case where, among pixel values of the image data, a range from a minimum value to a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value is defined as a first range and a range from a third threshold value that is between the first threshold value and the second threshold value to the second threshold value is defined as a second range ( Referring to Sudret et al. Fig. 9, a first range exists from a minimum value – e.g. the origin 940 – to a second threshold value – e.g. the LUMA IN value corresponding to control point P0 – which is smaller than the first threshold value. The first threshold value, as described above, demarcates the brightest regions of the dynamic range and would thus be greater than the LUMA IN value corresponding to control point P0. A second range also exists from a third threshold value – e.g. the LUMA IN value corresponding to the control point P1 – to the second threshold value. Note that the LUMA IN value corresponding to P1 is between the first threshold value and the second threshold value corresponding to the LUMA IN value of P0 ). the processor generates, in the gamma correction processing, the image data such that a difference between an output value of the display unit, in a case where a pixel value in the second range is input to the display unit, and the pixel value is greater than a difference between an output value of the display unit, in a case where a pixel value in the first range is input to the display unit, and the pixel value ( Note that the shape of the auto-exposure compensation tone curve 900 of Sudret et al. Fig. 9 is such that the vertical distance between the curve and the aforementioned identity curve is greatest in the region between the LUMA IN value corresponding to the control point P0 and the LUMA IN value corresponding to the control point P1 – i.e. the second range – thereby indicating that input luminance values in this range map to output luminance values that are not only larger than the input luminance values, but also deviate from the input luminance values by a greater amount than the deviation in the first range – i.e. the range bounded by the origin 940 and LUMA IN value correspond to the control point P0 ). Given teachings of Sudret et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate tone correction as described by Sudret et al. into the camera control unit of Richmond et al. (i.e. an interface adapter in keeping with claim 1), in order to ameliorate sub-optimal image quality ( cf. Sudret et al. col. 7, lines 5-48 ) and to ensure that the dynamic range of the camera is properly mapped to that of the display. Furthermore, by making the slope of the tone correction curve null in the brightest regions of dynamic range, while emphasizing tone correction within the second range, as described above, tones in the dark to midtone regions of the dynamic range are boosted, while contrast in bright regions is preserved. This profile is particularly advantageous in medical imagery, such as encountered in endoscopy . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. H. Fu, O. Mencer and W. Luk, "Comparing floating-point and logarithmic number representations for reconfigurable acceleration," 2006 IEEE International Conference on Field Programmable Technology, Bangkok, Thailand, 2006, pp. 337-340,. Relevance : Mencer et al. discuss the advantages of using logarithmic number conversions, in particular the advantages related to replacing costly division operations with subtraction operations. Kingsbury, N. G., & Rayner, P. J. W. (1971). Digital filtering using logarithmic arithmetic. Electronics Letters, 7(2), 56–58. Relevance: Seminal work by Kingsbury et al. shows the application of logarithmic arithmetic to digital computing, including the usage of ROM to facilitate conversion. Kaplinsky, M., & Subbotin, I. (Published: 2007, June 17). U.S. Patent No. 7,245,320 B1: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR AUTOMATIC GAIN AND EXPOSURE CONTROL FOR MAINTAINING TARGET IMAGE BRIGHTNESS IN VIDEO IMAGER SYSTEMS. Relevance : Kaplinsky et al. disclose tone correction involving various thresholds, as well using gain and exposure (integration) time to automatically correct exposure, including in a discrete, stepwise fashion. Kuriyama, N. (Published: 2016, October 4). U.S. Patent No. 9,462,192 B2: AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE CONTROL DEVICE, CONTROL DEVICE, ENDOSCOPE DEVICE AND AUTOMATIC EXPOSURE CONTROL METHOD Relevance: Kuriyama discloses an adaptive tone (gamma) correction and automatic exposure control using gain and exposure time within the context of endoscopy. Hayashi, Y. & Makino, T. (Published: 2025, July 29, Filed: 2020, September 25). U.S. Patent No. 12,369,785 B2: ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM WHICH DISPLAYS A CAPTURED IMAGE OF BIOLOGICAL TISSUE ON A SCREEN Relevance: Hayashi et al. disclose adjusting gain and exposure time to adjust a captured frame so that its luminance level matches a target luminance level in an endoscopic system with structural similarities to the applicant’s claimed invention. Daiku, H. (Published: 2009, November 19). U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0284616: IMAGE SIGNAL PROCESSING CIRCUIT Relevance: Daiku discloses automatic exposure control involving the adjustment of gain and exposure time, as well as gamma correction using a gamma correction curve adapted for different illumination characteristics. Surf-VHDL. 2017. How to implement division in VHDL - surf-VHDL. (November 2017). Retrieved May 7, 2026 from https://surf-vhdl.com/how-to-implement-division-in-vhdl/ Relevance: A Surf-VHDL post that mentions the challenges of deploying division operations on FPGAs and how other arithmetic operations are preferrable as alternatives when feasible. Stack Overflow. linear interpolation on 8bit microcontroller. (April 2010). Retrieved May 7, 2026 from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2661584/linear-interpolation-on-8bit-microcontroller Relevance: This Stack Overflow post includes code that implements bitwise linear interpolation in a manner that is identical to equation (2) of the Applicant’s specification. Similar methods for bitwise linear interpolation abound in the prior art. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN SIANGCHIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0982. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0800-1700 EST. 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, Jamie Atala can be reached at (571) 272-7384. 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. /K S/ Examiner Art Unit 2486 /K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2486 /JAMIE J ATALA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 2 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 3 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 4 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 5 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 6 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 7 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 8 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 9 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 10 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 11 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 12 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 13 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 14 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 16 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 17 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 18 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 20 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 21 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 22 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 23 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 24 Art Unit: 2486 Application/Control Number: 19/300,687 Page 25 Art Unit: 2486
Prosecution Insights