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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-14 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 30 December 2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-1, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hung (US 2023/0334838 A1).
Claim 1, Hung, teaches a device comprising a processor (processor 606; paragraph 0048) configured to:
determine a motion of a scene that is to be captured by an image sensor (motion prediction is performed based on spatial information received from radio-wave sensor and image received from the camera; paragraph 0042);
determine a configuration setting of an imaging device comprising the image sensor, wherein the configuration setting is based on the determined motion of the scene (updated camera parameters are set based on motion prediction result; paragraph 0043); and
generate an instruction for the imaging device to capture the scene using the determined configuration setting (subsequent image is captured based on the setting of the camera and image parameters; paragraph 0043).
Claim 2, Hung further teaches wherein the determined motion comprises a relative movement of at least one object within the scene relative to the imaging device (camera 604 tracks the object based on the predicted motion of the object; paragraph 0049).
Claim 3, Hung further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the relative movement based on a predicted motion at a prediction time of the at least one object within the scene or based on an expected motion of the imaging device at the prediction time (processor 606 predicts a motion trajectory of the object; paragraph 0049).
Claim 4, Hung further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the expected motion of the imaging device based on a planned trajectory of the imaging device at the prediction time (processor 606 predicts a motion trajectory of the object; paragraph 0049).
Clam 5, Hung further teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine the predicted motion of the at least one object based on an object motion analysis of the at least one object at the prediction time with respect to the scene (camera tracks the object and background to obtain a consolidated tracking result; paragraph 0049).
Claim 6, Hung further teaches wherein the relative movement of the at least one object relative to the imaging device comprises at least one of:
a relative rotational velocity of the at least one object relative to the image sensor, a relative translational velocity of the at least one object relative to the image sensor, a relative heading of the at least one object relative to the image sensor, and a relative distance between the at least one object and the image sensor (position and velocity of the object is detected relative to the sensor 602; see paragraph 0048 and Fig. 2).
Claim 8, Hung further teaches wherein the configuration setting of the imaging device comprises at least one of an exposure time, an aperture size, a focal length, a gain of the image sensor, a light level at the scene, and an illumination level of a light source on the scene (camera parameters include shutter timing, shutter speed, and focal length; paragraph 0046).
Claim 9, Hung further teaches wherein the exposure time is a function of at least one of:
the aperture size, the focal length, a size of the image sensor, a velocity of the motion, a directional heading of the motion, a distance to at least one object in the scene from the image sensor, a default exposure time for the light level, and a default gain for the light level (the spatial information that the shutter speed is based on includes position, velocity, or acceleration of the object; paragraph 0038-0039).
Claim 10 is analyzed and rejected as an apparatus with means for performing the functions of the device of claim 1.
Claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for causing one or more processors to perform the functions of the device of claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach or suggest a processor configured to determine a plurality of exposure times, each associated with a relative motion of the scene relative to the image sensor, wherein the processor is configured to select a selected exposure time from among the plurality of exposure times as the configuration setting based on a predefined selection criterion, in combination with the limitations of the parent claim 1. That is, the prior art does not teach or suggest determining a plurality of exposure times associated with a relative motion of the scene, and selecting an exposure time from among the plurality of exposure times based on a predefined criterion.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIAWEI A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1707. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 12:00pm - 9:00pm 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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571)272-7564. 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.
/CHIAWEI CHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637