DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ response to the last Office Action, filed on 03/31/2026 has been entered and made of record.
In view of the Applicant’s amendments, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) invocation of claims 1, 22, and 30 are expressly withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment has necessitated new grounds of rejection. Thus, new grounds of rejection are presented in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered, however, the arguments are indicated towards the newly added limitation of wherein the first data is received directly from the sensor apparatus at the first processor and wherein the first data is received directly from the sensor apparatus at the second processor. Thus, Examiner has brought in reference Shin (US 2014/0189272) to address the added limitation to the claims.
In response to Applicant's argument that the claims as amended are directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that the added limitations of receiving or obtaining first data directly from the sensor apparatus still amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus are still considered insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 22, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the steps of generating output relating to one or more aspects of the first data and producing human-cognizable data corresponding to the one or more aspects, which may be performed practically by a human using pen and paper as mental processes by writing or drawing out an output and writing or drawing out a picture image. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of the first processor, sensor apparatus, and second processor are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and sensor. The additional elements of receiving or obtaining first data from a sensor apparatus directly amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity. The additional elements of using the non-deterministic machine-based intelligence algorithms and deterministic sensor data processing algorithms are used to generally apply the abstract idea without reciting or limiting how the algorithms function. The intelligence and processing algorithms are described at a high level such that they amount to using a computer with a generic processing model to apply the abstract idea and merely recites the outcomes of generating output and producing human-cognizable data without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements of the first processor, sensor apparatus, second processor, and the execution of the non-deterministic machine-based intelligence algorithms and deterministic sensor data processing algorithms are at best mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements of receiving or obtaining first data directly from a sensor apparatus are recited at a high level of generality that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and insignificant extra-solution activity, which do not provide an inventive concept. Thus, claims 1, 22, and 30 are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims 2-9, 23-29, 31, and 32 also do not include elements that amount to significantly more than just the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 2-9, 23-29, 31, and 32 are also not patent eligible.
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 (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.
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(s) 1-5, 22-25 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0234044) in view of Shin (US 2014/0189272).
With regards to claim 1, Cai et al. discloses an integrated circuit apparatus, comprising:
a first processor configured to execute non-deterministic machine-based intelligence algorithms on first data obtained from a sensor apparatus to generate output relating to one or more aspects of the first data (Para. 0052 lines 1-7, 0058 lines 1-2, 0059 lines 1-5, 0060 lines 1-5, 0063 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "operation processor" "neural network operation processor" "recognize the scene"); and
a second processor configured to execute deterministic sensor data processing algorithms on the first data to produce human-cognizable data corresponding to the one or more aspects (Para. 0053 lines 9-11, 0072 lines 2-4, 0077 lines 10-13, 0078 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "image signal processor" "enhanced image signal").
Cai et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the first data is received directly from the sensor apparatus at the first processor and wherein the first data is received directly from the sensor apparatus at the second processor. Instead, Cai et al. discloses the first and second processor receiving and performing on the same image signal derived from the image sensor, where a sensor signal from the sensor apparatus is first processed by an image signal processor to derive the image signal (Para. 0059 lines 1-16).
However, Shin discloses the concept of an integrated camera unit that includes a camera sensor and a signal processor integrated with the camera sensor, where the camera sensor captures image data and the signal processor converts the signals into digital image data (Para. 0042 lines 1-11, “camera sensor” “signal processor” “integrally or separately”). While Cai et al. discloses a separate sensor apparatus and processor to generate the image signal for later use, Shin teaches an integrated sensor and processor apparatus for the purpose of generating an image signal for later use. In both cases, an image signal is generated from a sensor apparatus that can be used for other processing. Thus, Cai et al. would be modified to, instead of the first and second processor receiving and performing on an image signal received directly from an image signal processor that converted the sensor signal from the sensor apparatus, use a camera unit that integrates the sensor apparatus and the signal processor together, where the first and second processor receive and perform on an image signal received directly from the camera unit.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai et al. to replace the technique of a separate sensor apparatus and processor and thus receiving and performing on an image signal received directly from an image signal processor that converted the sensor signal from the sensor apparatus with an integrated sensor apparatus, which includes a processor, and thus receiving and performing on an image signal received directly from the integrated sensor apparatus as taught by Shin since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to generate an image signal from the camera sensor.
With regards to claim 2, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first and second processor comprise first and second integrated circuits, respectively, which are optimized for their respective processing (Cai et al.: Para. 0036 lines 32-37 and 42-43, 0038 lines 1-7, 0052 lines 1-13, "ISP" "integrated circuits").
With regards to claim 3, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first and second integrated circuits optimized for their respective processing comprise a field-programmable gate array and an image signal processor, respectively (Cai et al.: Para. 0036 lines 32-37 and 42-43, 0038 lines 1-7, 0052 lines 1-7, "ISP" "FPGA").
With regards to claim 4, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 2, wherein the first and second integrated circuits optimized for their respective processing comprise an application-specific integrated circuit and an image signal processor, respectively (Cai et al.: Para. 0036 lines 32-37 and 42-43, 0038 lines 1-7, 0052 lines 1-7, "ISP" "ASIC").
With regards to claim 5, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 1, wherein the sensor apparatus comprises an image sensor (Cai et al.: Para. 0038 lines 1-7, 0059 lines 1-5, "image sensor").
With regards to claims 22, 23, and 25, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 1, 2, and 5, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 5 are equally applicable to claims 22, 23, and 25, respectively.
With regards to claim 24, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the method of claim 22, wherein the first integrated circuit comprises an application specific integrated circuit or a field programmable gate array, and the second processor comprises an image signal processor (Cai et al.: Para. 0036 lines 32-37 and 42-43, 0038 lines 1-7, 0052 lines 1-7, "ISP" "FPGA" "ASIC").
With regards to claim 30, Cai et al. discloses a device comprising:
a first processor (Para. 0052 lines 1-7, 0058 lines 1-2, "operation processor" "neural network operation processor") configured to:
receive first data from a sensor apparatus (Para. 0058 lines 1-2, 0059 lines 1-5, "image signal"); and
generate, with non-deterministic machine-based intelligence algorithms and based on the first data, an output relating to one or more aspects of the first data (Para. 0060 lines 1-5, 0063 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "recognize the scene"); and
a second processor apparatus (Par. 0077 lines 10-13, "image signal processor") configured to:
receive the first data from the sensor apparatus (Para. 0053 lines 9-11, 0078 lines 1-7, "image signal"); and
generate, with deterministic sensor data processing algorithms and based on the first data, human-cognizable data corresponding to the one or more aspects of the first data (Para. 0053 lines 9-11, 0072 lines 2-4, 0078 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "enhanced image signal").
Cai et al. does not explicitly teach a first processor configured to receive the first data directly from the sensor apparatus and a second processor configured to receive the first data directly from the sensor apparatus. Instead, Cai et al. discloses the first and second processor receiving and performing on the same image signal derived from the image sensor, where a sensor signal from the sensor apparatus is first processed by an image signal processor to derive the image signal (Para. 0059 lines 1-16).
However, Shin discloses the concept of an integrated camera unit that includes a camera sensor and a signal processor integrated with the camera sensor, where the camera sensor captures image data and the signal processor converts the signals into digital image data (Para. 0042 lines 1-11, “camera sensor” “signal processor” “integrally or separately”). While Cai et al. discloses a separate sensor apparatus and processor to generate the image signal for later use, Shin teaches an integrated sensor and processor apparatus for the purpose of generating an image signal for later use. In both cases, an image signal is generated from a sensor apparatus that can be used for other processing. Thus, Cai et al. would be modified to, instead of the first and second processor receiving and performing on an image signal received directly from an image signal processor that converted the sensor signal from the sensor apparatus, use a camera unit that integrates the sensor apparatus and the signal processor together, where the first and second processor receive and perform on an image signal received directly from the camera unit.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Cai et al. to replace the technique of a separate sensor apparatus and processor and thus receiving and performing on an image signal received directly from an image signal processor that converted the sensor signal from the sensor apparatus with an integrated sensor apparatus, which includes a processor, and thus receiving and performing on an image signal received directly from the integrated sensor apparatus as taught by Shin since one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution and the results from the substitution would be predictable to generate an image signal from the camera sensor.
Claim(s) 6, 7, 28, 29, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0234044) in view of Shin (US 2014/0189272) and further in view of Shpalensky et al. (US 2019/0259136).
With regards to claim 6, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 5, wherein the human- cognizable data comprises an image (Cai et al.: Para. 0038 lines 1-7, 0053 lines 9-11, 0072 lines 2-4, 0078 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "generate enhanced image signal").
The combination of Cai et al. and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the image is output to a display for viewing by a human.
However, Shpalensky et al. discloses the concept of generating a final enhanced image and outputting the image to a display for viewing by a human in order to allow a user to see the generated image (Para. 0066 lines 11-18, "display").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of outputting the generated enhanced image to a display for viewing by a human as taught by Shpalensky et al. into the integrated circuit apparatus of the combination of Cai et al. and Shin. The motivation for this would be to allow a user to see the produced image.
With regards to claim 7, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 5, wherein the human- cognizable data comprises an image (Cai et al.: Para. 0038 lines 1-7, 0053 lines 9-11, 0072 lines 2-4, 0078 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "generate enhanced image signal").
The combination of Cai et al. and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the image is saved or transmitted to another computing device as an image file.
However, Shpalensky et al. discloses the concept of generating a final enhanced image and saving or transmitting the image for later viewing by a human in order to allow a user to see the generated image (Para. 0066 lines 11-18, "storing" “transmitting”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of saving or transmitting the image for later viewing by a human as taught by Shpalensky et al. into the integrated circuit apparatus of the combination of Cai et al. and Shin. The motivation for this would be to allow a user to see the produced image.
With regards to claims 28 and 29, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 6 and 7, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 6 and 7 are equally applicable to claims 28 and 29, respectively.
With regards to claim 32, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the device of claim 30, wherein the human-cognizable data comprises an image (Cai et al.: Para. 0038 lines 1-7, 0053 lines 9-11, 0072 lines 2-4, 0078 lines 1-7, Fig. 4, "generate enhanced image signal").
The combination of Cai et al. and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein the image is output to a display for viewing by a human or transmitted to another computing device as an image file.
However, Shpalensky et al. discloses the concept of generating a final enhanced image and outputting the image to a display for viewing by a human in order to allow a user to see the generated image (Para. 0066 lines 11-18, "display").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the concept of outputting the generated enhanced image to a display for viewing by a human as taught by Shpalensky et al. into the integrated circuit apparatus of the combination of Cai et al. and Shin. The motivation for this would be to allow a user to see the produced image.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 26, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai et al. (US 2020/0234044) in view of Shin (US 2014/0189272) and further in view of Hwang et al. (US 2020/0211229).
With regards to claim 8, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 5,
The combination of Cai et al. and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein image data captured by the sensor apparatus is processed with image signal processing including a color filter array, and wherein the image data processed with the color filter array is the first data obtained from the sensor apparatus.
However, Hwang et al. discloses the concept of processing image data captured by a sensor with a color filter array to obtain color image data (Para. 0110 lines 3-15, “color filter array”). The combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses color image data obtained from a sensor (Cai et al.: Para. 0074 lines 1-3, 0075 lines 14-16, where the image scenes include blue or green, thus the image data necessarily includes color), and the technique as taught by Hwang et al. is just one of a finite number of ways to obtain color image data.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try and include the technique of processing image data captured by a sensor with a color filter array as taught by Hwang et al. into the combination of Cai et al. and Shin since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the technique with a reasonable expectation of success of obtaining color image data to use in further processing.
With regards to claim 9, the combination of Cai et al., Shin, and Hwang et al. discloses the integrated circuit apparatus of claim 8, wherein the color filter array is a Bayer filter or a red green blue (RGB) filter (Hwang et al.: Para. 0110 lines 3-15, “Bayer filter”).
With regards to claims 26 and 27, they recite the functions of the apparatus of claims 8 and 9, respectively, as processes. Thus, the analyses in rejecting claims 8 and 9 are equally applicable to claims 26 and 27, respectively.
With regards to claim 31, the combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses the device of claim 30, wherein the sensor apparatus comprises an image sensor (Cai et al.: Para. 0038 lines 1-7, 0059 lines 1-5, "image sensor").
The combination of Cai et al. and Shin does not explicitly teach wherein image data captured by the sensor apparatus is processed with image signal processing including a color filter array, and wherein the image data processed with the color filter array is the first data received from the sensor apparatus.
However, Hwang et al. discloses the concept of processing image data captured by a sensor with a color filter array to obtain color image data (Para. 0110 lines 3-15, “color filter array”). The combination of Cai et al. and Shin discloses color image data obtained from a sensor (Cai et al.: Para. 0074 lines 1-3, 0075 lines 14-16, where the image scenes include blue or green, thus the image data necessarily includes color), and the technique as taught by Hwang et al. is just one of a finite number of ways to obtain color image data.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to try and include the technique of processing image data captured by a sensor with a color filter array as taught by Hwang et al. into the combination of Cai et al. and Shin since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the technique with a reasonable expectation of success of obtaining color image data to use in further processing.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAROL W CHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5766. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-3:30 M-F.
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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/CAROL W CHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights