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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12464251. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are wholly encompassed by the claims of the patent as shown below.
19353158
18564310 (patent 12464251)
1. An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
1. (currently amended) An apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
obtain an image frame captured by an image capture system in accordance with a first plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings, the image frame including a first image component associated with visible light and a second image component associated with non-visible light;
obtain an image frame captured by an image capture system in accordance with an auto-exposure parameter set to a first setting, the image frame including a first image component associated with visible light and a second image component associated with non- visible light;
determine, based on the first image component, a first auto-exposure gain; determine, based on the second image component, a second auto-exposure gain; and
determine, based on the first image component, a first auto-exposure gain; determine, based on the second image component, a second auto-exposure gain; and
determine, based on the first and second auto-exposure gains and in a predetermined order, a second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings; wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings is configured to be used by the image capture system to capture a subsequent image frame.
determine, based on the first and second auto-exposure gains, a second setting for the auto-exposure parameter, the second setting configured to be used by the image capture system to capture a subsequent image frame.
wherein the determining the first auto-exposure gain includes: detecting a first auto-exposure value for the first image component, the first auto- exposure value representing one or more auto exposure-related characteristics of the first image component, accessing a first auto-exposure target for the first image component, the first auto- exposure target representing a target for the first auto-exposure value, and determining the first auto-exposure gain based on the first auto-exposure target and the first auto-exposure value; and wherein the determining the second auto-exposure gain includes: detecting a second auto-exposure value for the second image component, the second auto-exposure value representing one or more auto exposure-related characteristics of the second image component, accessing a second auto-exposure target for the second image component, the second auto-exposure target representing a target for the second auto-exposure value, and determining the second auto-exposure gain based on the second auto-exposure target and the second auto-exposure value
The claim of the instant application is wholly encompassed by the claim of the patent. Comparison of claims 1 and Claims 16 and 19 are similar to the above chart.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
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.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng US 20050203423 in view of Ward US 20190088178.
Regarding claim 1, Zeng meets the claim limitations, as follows:
An apparatus comprising:
one or more processors (i.e. processor 41) [131; fig. 2]; and
memory storing executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors [179], cause the apparatus to:
obtain an image frame captured by an image capture system in accordance with a first plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings, the image frame including a first image component associated with visible light and a second image component associated with non- visible light (i.e. image 234 captured by CCD camera 50 which is captured using RGB 86-88 and NIR light detectors 88-89 has some exposure gain parameter) [219,232,236; fig. 2];
determine, based on the first image component, a first auto-exposure gain (i.e. gains of detectors 87 and 89 are selectively adjusted to pre-determined levels) [179];
determine, based on the second image component, a second auto-exposure gain (i.e. gains of detectors 87 and 89 are selectively adjusted to pre-determined levels) [179]; and
determine, based on the first and second auto-exposure gains, a second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings, wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings is configured to be used by the image capture system to capture a subsequent image frame (i.e. the processor circuit is directed to control the camera controlling electronics 49 to adjust the NIR wavelength range signal of the CCD camera 50 by adjusting the gain of the third and fourth detectors 88 and 89, and to adjust the green wavelength range signal by adjusting the gain of the second detector 87, to produce a desired NIR-to-green signal ratio for fluorescence imaging of the tissue being viewed by the endoscope 59) [232].
Zeng do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
determine, based on the first and second auto-exposure gains and in a predetermined order, a second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings, wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings is configured to be used by the image capture system to capture a subsequent image frame
However, in the same field of endeavor Ward discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
determine, based on the first and second auto-exposure gains and in a predetermined order, a second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings, wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings is configured to be used by the image capture system to capture a subsequent image frame (i.e. exposure sequences are based on a predetermined order) [7]
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward to have determine, based on the first and second auto-exposure gains and in a predetermined order, a second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings, wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings is configured to be used by the image capture system to capture a subsequent image frame.
It would be advantageous because "[0039] Capturing pictures at a high frame-rate is hampered by bandwidth and noise issues. The larger number of pictures captured increases amount of data per second sent down the pipeline thus affecting bandwidth and the higher frame-rates translate to shorter exposure times and increase the noise associated with the picture. High frame-rate video allows a reduction of motion artifacts such as judder and excessive blurring.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward to obtain the invention as specified in claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Zeng meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the non-visible light comprises fluorescence excitation illumination emitted at a wavelength included in an infrared light region; and the second image component associated with the non-visible light shows fluorescence illumination emitted by a fluorescence imaging agent excited by the fluorescence excitation illumination (i.e. fluorescence range is 450nm-750nm and NIR range also includes values between 600nm and 800nm. Therefore fluorescent light would be included in this NIR range. For fluorescence imaging, the tissue is irradiated with excitation light, typically short wavelength light, which may range from blue to ultraviolet depending on the application.) [10,151].
Regarding claim 9, Zeng meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the auto-exposure parameter comprises an illumination intensity parameter corresponding to an illumination source of the image capture system (i.e. controlling illumination intensity) [56].
Regarding claim 10, Zeng meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the auto-exposure parameter comprises a gain parameter corresponding to one or more of an analog gain of the image capture system, an RGB gain of the image capture system, or a Bayer gain of the image capture system (i.e. gains of RGB detectors 87 and 89 are selectively adjusted to pre-determined levels) [179].
Regarding claim 11, Zeng meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the auto-exposure parameter comprises a shared auto-exposure parameter configured to be set with a single setting that influences both the first image component associated with the visible light and the second image component associated with the non-visible light (i.e. single source able to provide all necessary illumination. The single source would have the same parameter) [206].
Regarding claim 12, Zeng meets the claim limitations, as follows:
The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings comprises a setting for non-shared auto-exposure parameter configured to be set with a dual setting that independently influences the first image component associated with the visible light and the second image component associated with the non-visible light (i.e. As a further alternative, the at least one electromagnetic radiation source may include two or more electromagnetic radiation sources. These would have separate settings and parameters.) [206].
Claim 16 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim 19 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng with Ward in view of Luo US 20190213723.
Regarding claim 3, Zeng with Ward do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
the determining the first auto-exposure gain includes: accessing a first auto-exposure target for the first image component, detecting a first auto-exposure value for the first image component, and determining the first auto-exposure gain based on the first auto-exposure target and the first auto-exposure value; and the determining the second auto-exposure gain includes: accessing a second auto-exposure target for the second image component, detecting a second auto-exposure value for the second image component, and determining the second auto-exposure gain based on the second auto-exposure target and the second auto-exposure value.
However, in the same field of endeavor Luo discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
the determining the first auto-exposure gain includes: accessing a first auto-exposure target for the first image component, detecting a first auto-exposure value for the first image component, and determining the first auto-exposure gain based on the first auto-exposure target and the first auto-exposure value; and the determining the second auto-exposure gain includes: accessing a second auto-exposure target for the second image component, detecting a second auto-exposure value for the second image component, and determining the second auto-exposure gain based on the second auto-exposure target and the second auto-exposure value (i.e. gain level during auto exposure during imaging is determined using a predetermined level or threshold. This could be done for visual and non-visual light imaging) [115,170].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward and Luo to have the determining the first auto-exposure gain includes: accessing a first auto-exposure target for the first image component, detecting a first auto-exposure value for the first image component, and determining the first auto-exposure gain based on the first auto-exposure target and the first auto-exposure value; and the determining the second auto-exposure gain includes: accessing a second auto-exposure target for the second image component, detecting a second auto-exposure value for the second image component, and determining the second auto-exposure gain based on the second auto-exposure target and the second auto-exposure value.
It would be advantageous because " The object of the embodiments of the present application is to provide an image collection device for light splitting and fusion, in order to improve the color accuracy of the fused image. ” [6].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward and Luo to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng with Ward in view of Kazama US 20190068890.
Regarding claim 5, Zeng with Ward do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
the determining the first auto-exposure gain is performed using a first auto-exposure gain algorithm; and the determining the second auto-exposure gain is performed using a second auto- exposure gain algorithm different from the first auto-exposure gain algorithm.
However, in the same field of endeavor Kazama discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
the determining the first auto-exposure gain is performed using a first auto-exposure gain algorithm; and the determining the second auto-exposure gain is performed using a second auto- exposure gain algorithm different from the first auto-exposure gain algorithm (i.e. multiple different exposure amount algorithms used.) [116-135; 161-164; fig. 12 and 16,17a,b].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward and Kazama to have the determining the first auto-exposure gain is performed using a first auto-exposure gain algorithm; and the determining the second auto-exposure gain is performed using a second auto- exposure gain algorithm different from the first auto-exposure gain algorithm.
It would be advantageous because "Therefore, the omnidirectional imaging device 10 according to the present embodiment corrects an exposure difference to obtain an image with less sense of discomfort as follows.” [44].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward and Kazama to obtain the invention as specified in claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng with Ward in view of Kojima US 20180228352.
Regarding claim 8, Zeng with Ward do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the first plurality of auto-exposure parameter comprises an exposure time parameter corresponding to how long a shutter exposes an image sensor of the image capture system
However, in the same field of endeavor Kojima discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the first plurality of auto-exposure parameter comprises an exposure time parameter corresponding to how long a shutter exposes an image sensor of the image capture system [57].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward and Kojima to have the auto-exposure parameter comprises an exposure time parameter corresponding to how long a shutter exposes an image sensor of the image capture system.
It would be advantageous because “In contrast, the invention according to the present embodiment avoids any inappropriate luminance control performed in the direction of lowering the luminance of the R image signal.” [66].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Zeng with Ward and Kojima to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8.
Claim(s) 13, 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng and Ward in view of Xue US 20200077076.
Regarding claim 13, Zeng and Ward do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein: the predetermined order in which the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings are determined is configured to maximize a signal integrity and minimize a noise level captured for the subsequent image frame.
However, in the same field of endeavor Xue discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein: the predetermined order in which the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings are determined is configured to maximize a signal integrity and minimize a noise level captured for the subsequent image frame (i.e. exposure settings used to reduce noise) [17].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zeng and Ward with Xue to have the predetermined order in which the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings are determined is configured to maximize a signal integrity and minimize a noise level captured for the subsequent image frame.
It would be advantageous because "[0031] For example, a single repeated tile of such a pattern of pixels could include three pixels sensitive to green wavelengths of light, two pixels sensitive to red wavelengths of light, two pixels sensitive to blue wavelengths of light, one pixel sensitive to infrared wavelengths of light, and one pixel sensitive to ultraviolet wavelengths of light. Such additional visible-wavelength pixels could be provided, e.g., in order to reduce a noise level at which visible-light chroma is detected for an image of a scene.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Zeng and Ward with Xue to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Claim 17 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 13.
Claim 20 is rejected using similar rationale as claim 13.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeng with Ward in view of Dal Mutto US 20150381963.
Regarding claim 15, Zeng and Ward do/does not explicitly disclose(s) the following claim limitations:
wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings comprise updated values for each of the first plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings.
However, in the same field of endeavor Dal Mutto discloses the deficient claim limitations, as follows:
wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings comprise updated values for each of the first plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings (i.e. settings (including exposure parameters can be updated.) [7,86].
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Zeng and Ward with Dal Mutto to have wherein the second plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings comprise updated values for each of the first plurality of auto-exposure parameter settings.
It would be advantageous because "[0040] According to aspects of embodiments of the present invention, a multi-channel image sensor is configured to capture multiple images with different capture parameters for the different channels. For example, a first set of parameters may be used for capturing visible light (RGB) images and a second set of parameters may be used for capturing invisible (e.g., IR) light images. In addition, aspects of embodiments of the present invention are directed to reducing the cross-talk between the visible light channels and the invisible light channel (or channels).”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of filing, to modify the teachings of Zeng and Ward with Dal Mutto to obtain the invention as specified in claim 15.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4,6,7,14 and 18 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 and a terminal disclaimer is filed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JARED T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-1839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7:00 - 3:00 Mountain.
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, Nasser Goodarzi can be reached on 571-272-4195. 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.
/Jared Walker/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2426
Prosecution Insights