DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. Under a reasonably broad construction, the limitation added to claims 1 and 10 does not require that the invisible light sensor be active even when the invisible light ISP is inactivated, as the applicant’s arguments imply.
The manner in which “either” is used renders the limitation ambiguous. For example, the language could mean: the signals are either generated when the ISP is activated, or generated when the ISP is inactivated, but not both. Moreover, because of the lack of a conjunction (such as when) before “either,” the first and second part of the limitation are not causally or temporally linked. In other words, a reader might reasonably interpret the language as:
wherein the step (a) generates the invisible light sensing signals;
either the invisible light ISP is activated or inactivated.
Either interpretation described above results in the limitation reading on Mani, since the language only requires the generation of invisible light sensing signals, without regard to the status of the invisible light ISP. Mani is thus cited below to meet the added limitation.
Also note that Mani is not limited to teaching the invisible light camera being activated by another camera (as highlighted in applicant’s arguments). Rather, “in some embodiments, the cameras are operated on a continuous basis and produce continuous streams of image frames” [Mani, para. 38]. Those embodiments of Mani appear to meet even the narrower construction of the added limitation urged by applicant, since Mani teaches the invisible light sensor being active in all cases, including when the ISP is activated or inactivated.
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 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.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mani et al., US 2020/0110532.
Claims 1 and 10. Mani teaches an image processing system, comprising:
a visible light sensor, configured to generate visible light sensing signals [visible light sensor, Figs. 2, 5, paras. 27, 38];
a visible light ISP (image signal processor), configured to generate visible light images according to the visible light sensing signals [visible light camera is an image processor, Figs. 2, 5, para. 38; also see image processing unit 115, Fig. 5, paras. 35, 81];
an invisible light sensor, configured to generate invisible light sensing signals [night-vision sensor, Figs. 2, 5, paras. 27, 38];
an invisible light ISP, configured to generate invisible light images according to the invisible light sensing signals [night-vision camera (ISP), Figs. 2, 5, para. 38]; and
an event detector, configured to activate or inactivate the invisible light ISP according to if a specific event is detected by the event detector [night-vision camera (ISP) is activated when motion is detected by infrared camera (event detector), Figs. 2, 5, paras. 27, 38]
wherein the step (a) generates the invisible light sensing signals either the invisible light ISP is activated or inactivated [Figs. 2, 5, paras. 27, 38, 81; see Response to Amendment section above].
2 and 11. Mani teaches the image processing system of claim 1, wherein the specific event is that the invisible light sensing signals meet a specific rule [triggering event is infrared camera sensing more than a threshold amount of movement, para. 38].
3 and 12. Mani teaches the image processing system of claim 2, wherein the specific rule is that variation of the invisible light sensing signals is over a variation threshold [i.e. motion occurs (the scene varies) more than a threshold, para. 38].
5 and 14. Mani teaches the image processing system of claim 1, wherein the specific event is a trigger signal for triggering the event detector to activate the invisible light ISP [motion is the event that triggers the infrared camera to trigger the night-vision camera, para. 38].
6 and 15. Mani teaches the image processing system of claim 5, wherein the trigger signal is from a thermal sensor [infrared camera, para. 38] or a smoke detector.
7 and 16. Mani teaches the image processing system of claim 6, wherein the event detector is triggered to allow the invisible light sensing signals to be transmitted to the invisible ISP [night-vision camera only captures image (i.e. receives and processes the signal from the night-vision sensor) when triggered by infrared camera, para. 38].
9 and 18. Mani teaches the image processing system of claim 1, wherein the image processing system has a first power consumption rate when the specific event is not detected and has a second power consumption rate after the specific event is detected, wherein the second consumption rate is higher than the first consumption rate [power consumption is reduced (e.g. from first rate to second rate) when a camera (such as night-vision camera) is not used, i.e. has not been triggered by the infrared camera sensing a motion event, paras. 34, 38, 60].
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.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani as cited above in view of Trundle et al., US 2011/0102588.
4 and 13 (from 2 and 11). Mani is silent on a pixel value distribution rule. Trundle teaches an image processing system wherein the specific rule is that pixel value distributions of the invisible light sensing signals meet a predetermined distribution [size and shape of object (i.e. pixel distribution) is compared to expected/reference (predetermined) size and shape of a person; if the object has the expected shape the system is triggered to capture/transmit images (step 340); camera sensor captures pixels; Figs. 3 5-7, paras. 16, 77, 81, 82, 84-86, 96].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using Trundle’s technique to avoid triggering any sensors except when necessary. Trundle’s object recognition allows the system to omit some recording based on user preferences and thereby save memory and power.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mani as cited above in view of Day et al., US 11,748,991.
8 and 17. Mani is silent on image combination. Day teaches an image processing system comprising:
an image combination circuit, configured to combine the visible light images and the invisible light images to generate combination images [IR data is fused with color image data, Fig. 6; col. 2, 10-37; col. 9, 13-39];
wherein the event detector is further configured to activate or inactivate the image combination circuit according to if the specific event is detected [upon a trigger (e.g. ambient light level reading), image combination is activated, Fig. 6, col. 9, 3-39].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, combining infrared and visible light images in order to capture the most useful images, including IR data for low-light situations but also showing color information that may be useful in distinguishing objects in the field of view.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2424