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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Prior Art Rejection
The examiner acknowledges the amendment of claims 1, 3 & 17-18 and cancellation of claim 2 filed 03/25/2026. Applicants arguments filed on (03/25/2026) have been fully considered but are deemed moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Due to the variation in claim scope via amendments a new ground of rejection is proper.
ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 6-7 & 20 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.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8 & 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WANG (U.S. Publication 2014/0263961) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0066782)
As to claims 1 & 17, WANG discloses a pixel region, comprising multiple pixels arranged in a matrix (215A/B, Fig. 2 & [0039] discloses multiple pixels, Group 210 includes first pixel 215A, second 215B, and other pixels 211. [0038] discloses pixel array 110 has a two dimensional array of pixels. The array can be organized in rows and columns.), each of the multiple pixels being configured to output bit 0 or bit 1 ([0046] & Fig. 3 discloses 1 bit outputs at pixel granularity. “data bandwidth can be small one bit per pixel if preserve only two outcomes.); a readout circuit, configured to read the pixel region ([0075] & Fig. 19 is a diagram for a column readout circuit 1900. Circuit 1900 includes Pixel A 1915A and Pixel B 1915B.), and calculate a difference of the bit 0 or the bit 1 respectively between each pixel and at least one adjacent pixel ([0045] discloses the comparator is configured to compare an output of the first pixel in the group to an output of the second pixel. [0051] discloses the choice of the first and second pixel can be guided by a desire that they be similar, and they be as close as possible to each other there is at most one other pixel between the first pixel and the second pixel. [0094] discloses according to another operation 2140, an output of the first pixel is compared to an output of the second pixel. A difference in the comparison is performed so as to detect a motion.);
to generate spatial differences ([0008] discloses a difference in their outputs may indicate an edge in an imaging operation, and motion in a motion detection operation.)
and a processor, configured to identify whether the motion detection device has a motion according to the spatial differences ([0037] discloses device 100 additionally includes a controller 120, for controlling the operation of pixel array 110. Comparator 330 has an output 377. In some embodiments, a motion of the pixel array 110 is detected from output 377.)
WANG is silent to wherein the bit 1 or the bit 0 is a difference value of charges generated by a photodiode of the each of the multiple pixels between a current time and a reference time.
However, Choi discloses wherein the bit 1 or the bit 0 is a difference value of charges generated by a photodiode ([0040] discloses pixel array 32 having rows and columns of photodiode based pixels. [0045] discloses the charge integrated in the photodiode is transferred.) of the each of the multiple pixels between a current time and a reference time ([0010] discloses temporarily storing a previous frame signal comparing the stored previous frame signal to a current frame signal to identify motion. [0041] discloses upon detecting motion, an integrated motion comparator 340 is activated to provide a 128 times 64 1-bit motion image 19 based on the interframe difference. [0047] discloses motion comparator 30 may compare a current frame signal with a previous frame signal, and based on the difference between the two, motion comparator 30 may generate 1-bit motion signals.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to implement the output bit on an explicit photodiode charge difference between current and reference times.
As to claims 3 & 18, WANG in view of Choi discloses everything as disclosed in claims 1 & 17 respectively. In addition, WANG discloses non-concurrent integration and temporally distinct comparisons. ([0043-0046, 0091-0094])
WANG in view of Choi but is silent to the current time and the reference time are separated by a frame period.
However, Choi discloses the current time and the reference time are separated by a frame period. ([0041] discloses based on the inter frame difference. [0047] discloses motion comparator 30 may compare a current frame signal with a previous frame signal. [0048] discloses after TINT/2, the previous frame signal stored in the upper FD and a newly generated signal for the current frame are computed.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG in view of Choi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to use an explicit previous frame reference when producing the motion bit.
As to claim 8, WANG in view of Choi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1 but is silent to wherein the motion is a lift-up event of a navigation device or a motion event of a security system.
However, Choi’s wherein the motion is a lift-up event of a navigation device or a motion event of a security system. ([0002 discloses examples applications where fast objects need to be captured is surveillance systems.])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG in view of EGAWA’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to detect/report motion relevant to security monitoring and alerts.
Claims 4-5 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
WANG (U.S. Publication 2014/0263961) in view of Choi et al. (U.S. Publication 2009/0066782) & EGAWA et al. (U.S. Publication 2008/0180557)
As to claim 4, WANG in view of Choi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 1. In addition, Choi discloses wherein the readout circuit is configured to read the pixel region (Fig. 19 is a diagram for a column readout circuit 1900.)
calculate a difference between adjacent pixels. ([0045] discloses the comparator is configured to compare an output of the first pixel to an output of the second pixel. [0051] discloses there is at most one other pixel between the first and second pixel.)
WANG in view of Choi is silent to read the pixel region using a readout block, between a center pixel and adjacent pixels of the center pixel in the readout block.
However, Choi discloses read the pixel region using a readout block, between a center pixel and adjacent pixels of the center pixel in the readout block.
([0050] discloses using a 1-b motion image signal 19 ROI decision unit 22 calculates the ROI address information row decoders 36 and column selector 34 may then access the ROI pixels.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG in view of Choi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to reduce bandwidth and support region focused motion analysis.
WANG in view of Choi is silent to using a readout block; between a center pixel and adjacent pixels of the center pixel in the readout block as the spatial differences.
However, Egawa discloses using a readout block ([0035] discloses 7x7 area is divided into four blocks each composed of 4x4 having the central W pixel in common. [0038] discloses 7x7 pixel signals are separated into four blocks, with the central pixel W0 at the corners.); between a center pixel and adjacent pixels of the center pixel in the readout block as the spatial differences ([0038] discloses the central one is set as target pixel W0. [0039] discloses absolute values of the differential signals W0-W1, W0-W2, W0-W3, W0-W4, W0-W5, W0-W6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG in view of Choi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to derive spatial differences from localized neighborhoods within a readout block.
As to claim 5, WANG in view of Choi & EGAWA discloses everything as disclosed in claim 4 but is silent to wherein the pixel region comprises at least 3x3 pixels.
However, EGAWA discloses wherein the pixel region comprises at least 3x3 pixels. ([0065] discloses 7x7 pixel area)([0063] discloses 5x5 pixel area is divided into four blocks each composed of 3x3 pixels having a central W pixel in common)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG in view of Choi & EGAWA’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to improve spatial difference reliability.
As to claim 19, WANG in view of Choi discloses everything as disclosed in claim 17 but is silent to further comprising a comparator configured to compare spatial differences of each readout block calculated by the readout circuit with a predetermined value.
However, EGAWA discloses further comprising a comparator configured to compare spatial differences of each readout block calculated by the readout circuit with a predetermined value. ([0039] discloses it is determined whether or not each of the absolute values is smaller than the threshold level LevN. [0041] discloses it is determined whether a signal level obtained by calculating the difference is lower than the threshold level LevN. [0066] discloses if an absolute value is greater than a threshold value Th0)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify WANG in view of Choi’s disclosure to include the above limitations in order to implement a comparator decision on the computed spatial differences.
CONCLUSION
No prior art has been found for claims 6-7 & 20 in their current form.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen P Coleman whose telephone number is (571)270-5931. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM.
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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at (571) 272-9523. 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.
Stephen P. Coleman
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/STEPHEN P COLEMAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights