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Claims 13-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/19/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figure 7 comes before figure 6, so the figures are out of order. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph 76, “an an optical sensor array,” should be “an optical sensor array,”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “image data receiver configured to receive”; “an error detector configured to detect”; “an error handler coupled to, and configured to receive”; “the error handler configured to: perform frame level error operations”; “while the error handler receives”; “an image processor coupled to receive”; “error handler is configured to detect”; “wherein the error handler is further configured to interrupt”; “the error detector is further configured to determine”; “the error handler is further configured to conceal”; “wherein the error handler is further configured to perform”; and “wherein the error handler is further configured to issue an interrupt” in claims 1-8 and 10-12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In regards to claim 2, the phrasing of the claim leaves the interpretation to be a bit unclear, but it is not to the point of a rejection. The claim states that “when one or more of the following occurs”, there are four limitations provided, “the received second signal is active while the error handler receives the last pixel of the current image data frame”; “the received fourth signal is not active while the error handler receives the last line of the current image data frame”; “the received first signal is active while the error handler receives the first pixel of the current image data frame”; and “the received third signal is not active while the error handler receives the first pixel of the first line of the current image data frame”. What is not clear is if the first and second limitations are supposed to be one limitation with the third and fourth limitations being a second limitation or if they are all supposed to be interpreted as separate limitations. As such, the claim is being interpreted as four separate limitations. If it is not meant to be interpreted in this way, applicant may respond or amend the claims to more clearly designate what the claim is meant to entail.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 20190260958 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wada, in view of Jeon et al. (US 20080310746 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jeon.
In regards to claim 1, Wada discloses an image processing device, comprising: an image data receiver configured to receive an image data frame (Paragraph 56, Paragraph 56 describes that the image signal is received via a cable which is within the BRI of this claim language), the image data receiver including an error detector configured to detect whether a size of the image data frame is erroneous (Paragraph 47, 47 of Wada disclosing that these signals can be used to detect errors); an error handler coupled to, and configured to receive from, the error detector a current image data frame, the error handler configured to: perform frame level error operations on the current image data frame to generate a corrected image frame (Paragraph 65, The paragraph states that the image processing unit can be corrected via a correction process that occurs on the frame), the frame level error operations including detecting a size violation with respect to the current image data frame based on a comparison of signals (Paragraph 47, 47 of Wada disclosing that these signals can be used to detect errors) and an image processor coupled to receive from the error handler the corrected image data frame (Paragraph 65, The paragraph states that the image processing unit can be corrected via a correction process that occurs on the frame).
However, Wada does not explicitly disclose using four separate signals, in which: the expected first signal is active while the error handler receives a first pixel of an image data frame, the expected second signal is active while the error handler receives a last pixel of an image data frame, the expected third signal is active while the error handler receives a first pixel of each of a plurality of lines including the first line of an image data frame, and the expected fourth signal is active while the error handler receives a last pixel of each of the plurality of lines including the last line of an image data frame.
Jeon does disclose using four separate signals (Paragraphs 58-59, discloses the four kinds of signals), in which: the expected first signal is active while the error handler receives a first pixel of an image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, These paragraphs disclose that the four signals disclosed can correlate to the beginning and ending of an image frame or the lines of an image frame which would be more than enough to check an error of said image frame’s size), the expected second signal is active while the error handler receives a last pixel of an image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, These paragraphs disclose that the four signals disclosed can correlate to the beginning and ending of an image frame or the lines of an image frame which would be more than enough to check an error of said image frame’s size), the expected third signal is active while the error handler receives a first pixel of each of a plurality of lines including the first line of an image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, These paragraphs disclose that the four signals disclosed can correlate to the beginning and ending of an image frame or the lines of an image frame which would be more than enough to check an error of said image frame’s size), and the expected fourth signal is active while the error handler receives a last pixel of each of the plurality of lines including the last line of an image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, These paragraphs disclose that the four signals disclosed can correlate to the beginning and ending of an image frame or the lines of an image frame which would be more than enough to check an error of said image frame’s size).
It would have been obvious as it would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as it would have led to a predictable increase in the accuracy of the detection system. Checking both ends of the lines allows for the process to see if there is an error within the lines of pixels between the two ends, and checking the beginning and end for an erroneous pixels would allow for the beginning and end of the image to be looked at to see any possible issues. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these teachings.
In regards to claim 2, Jeon discloses wherein the error handler is configured to detect a size violation with respect to the current image data frame when one or more of the following occurs: the received second signal is active while the error handler receives the last pixel of the current image data frame and the received fourth signal is not active while the error handler receives the last line of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, Jeon discloses that one of the signals to be used to determine that a frame violation has occurred is the disclosed fourth signal, since the claim only requires one of the signals to trigger, and this would trigger for the current frame and find it in error, it does not matter if they do not disclose that a different error signal tracking a different frame would call this frame in error), and the received first signal is active while the error handler receives the first pixel of the current image data frame and the received third signal is not active while the error handler receives the first pixel of the first line of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, Jeon discloses that one of the signals to be used to determine that a frame violation has occurred is the disclosed third signal, since the claim only requires one of the signals to trigger, and this would trigger for the current frame and find it in error, it does not matter if they do not disclose that a different error signal tracking a different frame would call this frame in error).
In regards to claim 3, Jeon discloses and the received first signal is not active while the error handler receives the first pixel of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, Jeon discloses that one of the signals to be used to determine that a frame violation has occurred is the disclosed first signal, since the claim only requires one of the signals to trigger, and this would trigger for the current frame and find it in error, it does not matter if they do not disclose that a different error signal tracking a different frame would call this frame in error).
In regards to claim 4, Jeon discloses wherein the error handler is configured to detect a size violation with respect to the current image data frame when at least one of the following occurs: the received fourth signal was not active while the error handler receives a last pixel of each of the plurality of lines including the last line of an image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, The fourth signal is defined as being active when it receives the last pixel, if it does not receive the last pixel for a plurality of lines, then it will be inactive and trigger the error handler), and the received fourth signal is not active while the error handler receives the first pixel of the first line of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, The fourth signal is only active when it receives the last pixel of the plurality of lines, so it would by implication, not be active while the first pixel of the first line is being received).
In regards to claim 5, Jeon discloses wherein the error handler is configured to detect a size violation with respect to the current image data frame when at least one of the following occurs: the received fourth signal was not active while the error handler received a last pixel of a line of the plurality of lines of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, Since, the fourth signal is triggered if this is the case, then the disclosure from Jeon would cover this), and the received fourth signal is not active while the error handler receives a last pixel of a next line immediately following the line of the plurality of lines of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, Similarly the fourth signal covers all lines within the plurality of lines, so if the next line triggers the fourth signal, then it would still flair an error by implication).
In regards to claim 6, Jeon discloses and the received second signal is not active while the error handler receives a last pixel of the current image data frame (Paragraphs 58-59, The claim only requires one of the actions to occur as such, since the second signal already checks this specific issue, the section from Jeon reads upon the claim).
In regards to claim 7, Wada discloses wherein the error handler is further configured to interrupt a host processor in response to detecting a size violation with respect to the current image data frame (Paragraphs 113-121, The processor is interrupted to correct missing pixels.).
Claims 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wada et al. (US 20190260958 A1), hereinafter referred to as Wada, in view of Jeon et al. (US 20080310746 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jeon. as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Namie et al. (US 20060013499 A1), hereinafter referred to as Namie.
In regards to claim 8, neither Jeon nor Wada explicitly disclose wherein, in response to detecting that the frame size of the image data frame is erroneous, the error detector is further configured to determine that the image data frame is larger than a reference size, and in response, discard data of a portion of the image data frame to generate the current image data frame.
However, Namie discloses that wherein, in response to detecting that the frame size of the image data frame is erroneous, the error detector is further configured to determine that the image data frame is larger than a reference size (Paragraphs 85-88 and 93, These paragraphs disclose the discarding of pixel data when the frame size is larger than the reference size since it reduces the size of the images of the video stream if it exceeds a certain point), and in response, discard data of a portion of the image data frame to generate the current image data frame (Paragraph 93, Namie discloses the discarding of a section of pixels).
It would be prima facie obvious to combine these references as discarding the data would allow for a predictable increase in the accuracy of the image generated. Discarding additional information of dubious reliability as it would be incomplete or extra, unnecessary information. Discarding this information would then be of considerable benefit to the accuracy of the image. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious.
In regards to claim 9, Namie discloses wherein the reference size includes an expected line width (Abstract and paragraph 6, Namie discloses a method for determining the between two reference pixels and using that, and one could simply substitute those pixels for the first of a line and the end of a line to get the line width and compare that to the expected line width where those pixels are present).
In regards to claim 10, Namie discloses wherein in response to detecting a size violation, the error handler is further configured to conceal the size violation and maintain a frame size expected by the image processor (Paragraphs 85-88 and 93, These paragraphs disclose the discarding of pixel data when the frame size is larger than the reference size since it reduces the size of the mages of the video stream if it exceeds a certain point).
In regards to claim 11, Namie discloses wherein the error handler is further configured to perform one of: undersized processing when the error detector detected that the size of the image data frame is undersized (Paragraph 94, Paragraph 94 discloses that it if it is undersized, it can add additional pixels), and oversized processing when the error detector detected that the size of the image data frame is oversized (Paragraph 93, Paragraph 93 discloses that if the frame is oversized, that it can delete those pixels).
In regards to claim 12, Wada discloses wherein the error handler is further configured to issue an interrupt to a host processor indicating a frame size error with respect to the image frame data (Paragraphs 113-121, The processor is interrupted to correct missing pixels).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 11798128 B2 in view of, Jeon et al. (US 20080310746 A1), hereinafter referred to as Jeon.
U.S. Patent No. 11,798,128 B2 discloses all of the subject matter except for explicitly teaching the fourth signal. However, Jeon in the same field of endeavor teaches the fourth signal.
It would have been obvious as it would be prima facie obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as it would have led to a predictable increase in the accuracy of the detection system. Checking both ends of the lines allows for the process to see if there is an error within the lines of pixels between the two ends which could have been missed if only one side is checked. Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to combine these teachings.
18/467940 US Patent 11,798,128 Analysis
18/467940
US Patent 11,798,128
Analysis
1
1+7
Claims 1 and 7 of 11,798,128 has the base system including the frame error, the size violation, and three of the four signals. Jeon teaches the fourth signal as shown above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. 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, Andrew Moyer can be reached at 5722729523. 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.
CONOR AIDAN. O'MALLEY
Examiner
Art Unit 2675
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/ANDREW M MOYER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2675