Infrared illumination control for visible and infrared imaging modes

All actions (4)

Notice of AllowanceLatest

Jul 21, 2026

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Mar 12, 2026 · §103, §112

Rejection groups (5)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20
Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 12, 2026
Examiner theory
No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581). As per Claim 1 HUNG discloses One or more hardware processors comprising processing circuitry to (Figs. 1 system 1 and processor 30 [Abstract]): generate a first frame of RGB image data based at least on operating an image processing pipeline in an RGB imaging mode (Figs. 1-3 start with RGB mode image capture [0021, 0025-0027, 0070]); and generate a second frame of infrared (IR) image data based at least on operating the image processing pipeline in an IR imaging mode (Figs. 1-3 in IR mode image capture – increased light intensity level - capture sequences going forward [0021, 0025-0027, 0070]) and at least one of: based at least on detecting that a first amount of light intensity (Figs. 1-3 in RGB mode image ca
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 5
Claim 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20, and further in view of SAKAMOTO et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020-0112662).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 12, 2026
Examiner theory
No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20, and further in view of SAKAMOTO et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020-0112662). As per Claim 5 HUNG discloses The one or more hardware processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to switch to operating the image processing pipeline in the RGB imaging mode based at least on detecting that the second amount of light intensity exceeds the second intensity threshold (Figs. 1-3 in IR mode image capture – increased light intensity level switch to RGB capture mode – exceed the predetermined value [0021, 0025-0027, 0070]) HUNG and LUNDGREN do not disclose but SAKAMOTO discloses detecting that a ratio of an amount of IR light in the second frame of IR image data to
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 6
Claim 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20, and further in view of JONES et al. (US Pub. No.: 2022-0133241).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 12, 2026
Examiner theory
No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20, and further in view of JONES et al. (US Pub. No.: 2022-0133241). As per Claim 6 HUNG discloses The one or more hardware processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to determine one of the first amount of light intensity or the second amount of light intensity (See said analysis for Claim 1) HUNG and LUNDGREN do not disclose but JONES discloses amount of light intensity based at least on averaging intensity values in a designated subset of the first frame or the second frame corresponding to a monitored region (Figs. 4, 6-7 averaging of pixel intensities where observed/measured [0071] [0213, 0215]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 7-8
Claims 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20, in view of WU (US Pub. No.: 2019-0287272).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 12, 2026
Examiner theory
No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-10, 19-20, in view of WU (US Pub. No.: 2019-0287272). As per Claim 7 HUNG discloses The one or more hardware processors of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further to switch to operating of the image processing pipeline in the RGB imaging mode based on (See said analysis for Claim 1) HUNG and LUNDGREN do not disclose but WU discloses based at least on turning off an IR emitter and subtracting IR intensities from one or more color channels (Figs. 1-13 IR light source 14 [0017] [0065] with source 14 turned off, generate subtraction IR components [0037, 0042-0043, 0079-0081]) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing dat
§ 112(d)Otherclaims 3-4
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 12, 2026
Examiner theory
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.

Prior art consulted (2)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20230166661	patent publication	—	View ↗
US20200322581	patent publication	—	View ↗

Objections (1)

allowable if rewrittenclaims 3-4

Allowable subject matter (2)

allowableclaims 11-18
allowableclaims 3-4

Final Office Action

Nov 14, 2025 · §103

Rejection groups (4)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1-2, 9-11, 18
Claims 1-2, 9-11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581).
Final Office Action mailed Nov 14, 2025
Examiner theory
No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581). As per Claim 1 HUNG discloses One or more hardware processors comprising processing circuitry to (Figs. 1 system 1 and processor 30 [Abstract]): generate a first frame of RGB image data based at least on operating an image processing pipeline in an RGB imaging mode (Figs. 1-3 start with RGB mode image capture [0021, 0025-0027, 0070]); based at least on detecting that a first amount of light intensity associated with the first frame of RGB image data is less than a first intensity threshold, switch to operating the image processing pipeline in an IR imaging mode to generate a second frame of infrared (IR) image data (Figs. 1-3 in RGB mode image capture – lower light intensity level switch to IR capture mode and ca
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 5, 15
Claims 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661) in view of LUNDGREN et al. et al. (Pub. No: US 2020-0322581), as applied in Claims 1-2, 9-11, 18, and further in view of SAKAMOTO et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020-0112662).

Non-Final Office Action

Jul 7, 2025 · §101, §102, §103

Rejection groups (5)

§ 101Non statutory subject matterclaims 1-18
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul 7, 2025
Examiner theory
In regard to Claims 1-18, it is noted that the specification and claims are silent as to whether the claimed ‘processor’ (Claims 1-10) and claimed ‘system’ (Claims 11-18) could read entirely on software and as such do not fall into any statutory class of invention. Computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” to be performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program’s functionality to be realized. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035
§ 102(a)(2)Anticipationclaims 1-2, 9-12, 18
Claims 1-2, 9-12, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over HUNG (Pub. No: US 2023-0166661).
Non-Final Office Action mailed Jul 7, 2025
Examiner theory

The latest action

Claim status

Open 18/494,010 as a matter in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (4)

Notice of AllowanceLatest

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (5)

Prior art consulted (2)

Objections (1)

Allowable subject matter (2)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (4)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (5)

Prior art consulted (2)

Objections (1)

Allowable subject matter (1)

Prior art consulted (1)

Objections (1)

Allowable subject matter (1)