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 .
Response to Amendment
A preliminary amendment, filed December 22, 2023 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-20 are pending in this Application, in which Claims 13, and 19 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
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:
-- a scene change tracker to quantify a level of change between a current image frame …”, in claim 1
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the third processor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “third processor” is not introduced before. It is unclear if this limitation of the claim is intended to refer to “a third processor” on line 1 of claim 6. It is suggested changing the dependency of claim 7 into claim 6, so that the “third processor” refers to a “third processor cited on claim 6.
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 1-2, 4-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming et al, (US-PGPUB 20210109585)
In regards to claim 1, Fleming discloses a camera control system, (102 in Fig.
1), the system comprising:
a scene change tracker, (414 in Fig. 4), to quantify a level of change between a current image frame provided by a camera and a previous image frame provided by the camera, (see at least: Fig. 4, and Par. 0085, motion detector 414 analyzes successive images of the image data 410 to identify meaningful changes in the images indicative of motion within the environment captured within the imaging FoV 124, [i.e., a scene change tracker, (414 in Fig. 4), to quantify a level of change, “meaningful changes in the images indicative of motion”, between a current image frame provided by a camera and a previous image frame provided by the camera, “successive images of the image data 410 captured by the image sensor]);
Fleming does not expressly disclose a first processor to generate camera control parameters using a first processing algorithm, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, if the level of change exceeds a first threshold; and a second processor to generate the camera control parameters using a second processing algorithm, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, if the level of change does not exceed a second threshold, the second threshold is less than or equal to the first threshold.
However, Fleming discloses in Par. 0271, that the computing device further including an auto-exposure parameter generator to determine auto-exposure parameters associated with the images when the image sensor is in the wake-on-motion mode, and further provides the auto-exposure parameters to the user presence detector in response to the image sensor switching from the wake-on-motion mode to the streaming mode; and from Par. 0038-0041, during the streaming mode, the image sensor 122 captures image data for processing by the processor 106; and if the low power operations controller 130 determines (during the streaming mode) that no user is present for a threshold period of time (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, etc.), the system may switch to the wake-on-motion mode to conserve additional power. Accordingly, the auto-exposure parameters associated with the images, ” the camera control parameters”, are generated by the computing device 102, the equivalence of a “first processor”, during the streaming mode relative to the computing device 102, which the user is technically present for a threshold period of time greater than (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes), “if the level of change exceeds a first threshold”, [i.e., a first processor, (102 in Fig. 1), to generate camera control parameters, “auto-exposure parameters associated with the images”, using a first processing algorithm, “implicit by processor 106”, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, “image data 410”, if the level of change exceeds a first threshold, “during the streaming mode, the user is technically presents for the threshold period of time greater than (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes)”]. Further, Par. 0085-0086, the low power operations controller 130 of Fig. 4 also includes an auto-exposure (AE) parameter generator 416 to determine auto-exposure parameters, “camera control parameters”, for the image data 410 as it is being analyzed by the example motion detector 418. Accordingly, the auto-exposure parameters associated with the images” the camera control parameters”, are generated by the low power operations controller 130, the equivalence of a “second processor”, during the wake-on-motion mode relative to the low power operations controller 130, which the user is technically not present for a threshold period of time less than or equal, “within” (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes), “if the level of change not exceed a second threshold, where the second threshold is less than or equal to the first threshold”, [i.e., a second processor, “102 in Fig. 1”, generates camera control parameters, “auto-exposure parameters associated with the images”, using a second processing algorithm, “the computing device 102 implicitly includes one or more algorithms”, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, “successive images of the image data 410 captured by the image sensor”, if the level of change does not exceed a second threshold, the second threshold less than or equal to the first threshold, “during the wake-on-motion mode, no user is present for a threshold period of time less or equal to (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, etc.), which corresponds to the second threshold”]). Therefore, Fleming is functionally equivalent to the recited limitations of claim 1 as addressed above.
In regards to claim 2, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the first processor is a general-purpose processor, the second processor is an image signal processor that consumes less power than the general-purpose processor, and the first processing algorithm is more computationally complex than the second processing algorithm, (see at least: Par. 0038-0041, during the streaming mode, the image sensor 122 captures image data for processing by the processor 106, [i.e., the processor 106 of the computing device 102 is implicitly general-purpose processor]. Further, Par. 0035, at least some of the analysis performed by the low power operations controller 130 is implemented by processor(s) of the computing device 102 (e.g., digital signal processor(s) (DSP(s)) operating in a low power mode or ultra-low power mode, [i.e., the second processor 130 is an image signal processor that consumes less power than the general-purpose processor]. Further, Par. 0028, example processor(s) 106 may execute, among other things, an operating system 108 and various other software applications including user-initiated application(s) 110, background application(s) 112, [i.e., processor(s) 106 is implicitly more computationally complex than the second processing algorithm]).
In regards to claim 4, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the camera control parameters include auto-focus parameters, auto-exposure parameters, auto-white balance parameters, and video stabilization parameters, (see at least: 0085, the low power operations controller 130 of FIG. 4 also includes an auto-exposure (AE) parameter generator 416 to determine auto-exposure parameters for the image data 410, [i.e., camera control parameters include auto-exposure parameters”]).
In regards to claim 5, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the scene change tracker is to quantify the level of change between the current image frame and the previous image frame based on one or more of motion estimation, detection of facial appearance, detection of facial disappearance, a time difference between acquisition of the current image frame and the previous image frame, accelerometer data provided by the camera, and gyroscope data provided by the camera, (see at least: Par. 0085, motion detector 414 analyzes successive images of the image data 410 to identify meaningful changes in the images indicative of motion within the environment captured within the imaging FoV 124, [i.e., quantify the level of change, “meaningful changes in the images”, between the current image frame and the previous image frame, “successive images”, based on one or more of motion estimation, “motion”]).
In regards to claim 6, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses a third processor to generate the camera control parameters using a third processing algorithm, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, if the level of change exceeds the second threshold and does not exceed the first threshold, (Par. 0035, some of the analysis performed by the low power operations controller 130 is implemented by one or more cloud-based devices, such as one or more servers, processors, and/or virtual machines and/or containers located remotely from the computing device 102, [i.e., low power operations controller 130 comprises plurality of processors, which implicit the third processor]. Further, Par. 0085-0086, the low power operations controller 130 of Fig. 4 also includes an auto-exposure (AE) parameter generator 416 to determine auto-exposure parameters, “camera control parameters”, for the image data 410 as it is being analyzed by the example motion detector 418. Accordingly, the auto-exposure parameters associated with the images” the camera control parameters”, are generated by the low power operations controller 130, “third processor”, during the wake-on-motion mode relative to the low power operations controller 130, which the user is technically not present for a threshold period of time less than or equal, “within” (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes), “if the level of change exceeds the second threshold and does not exceed the first threshold”, [i.e., a third processor, “102 in Fig. 1”, generates camera control parameters, “auto-exposure parameters associated with the images”, using a second processing algorithm, “the computing device 102 implicitly includes one or more algorithms”, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, “successive images of the image data 410 captured by the image sensor”, if the level of change exceeds the second threshold and does not exceed the first threshold, “during the wake-on-motion mode, no user is present for a threshold period of time less or equal to (e.g., 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, 5 minutes, 10 minutes, etc.), which corresponds to the second threshold”]).
In regards to claim 7, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the third processor is a general-purpose processor that consumes less power than the first processor, and the third processing algorithm is less computationally complex than the first processing algorithm and more computationally complex than the second processing algorithm, (Par. 0052, the training manager 132 is implemented by the processor(s) 106 of the computing device 102, [i.e., third processor is a general-purpose processor, “implemented by the processor(s) 106”, that consumes less power than the first processor]. Further, Par. 0028, example processor(s) 106 may execute, among other things, an operating system 108 and various other software applications including user-initiated application(s) 110, background application(s) 112; and from Par. 0051, the low power operations controller 130 is trained by the training manager 132 using machine learning algorithm(s) to recognize facial features and to determine a direction of gaze 136 and/or a user FoV 140 based on the recognition of such facial features, [i.e., the third processing algorithm is less computationally complex than the first processing algorithm, “performing face recognition and determining a direction of gaze 136 by machine learning algorithm, is implicitly less computationally complex than operating system 108 and various other software applications including user-initiated application(s) 110, and background application(s) 112, performed by processor 106 of computing device 102”, and more computationally complex than the second processing algorithm, “performing face recognition and determining a direction of gaze 136, is more computationally complex than analyzing the image data to determine the presence and/or engagement of the user, performed by the low power operations controller 130”]).
In regards to claim 8, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the scene change tracker executes on the second processor, (see at least: Par. 0039, the associated low power operations controller 130 are analyzing such data to detect motion within the field of view of the image sensor, “the associated low power operations controller 130 implicitly execute the scene change tracker for detecting motion”).
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 9 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): a processor-implemented method for camera control”. However, Fleming discloses the “processor-implemented method for camera control”, (see at least: Par. 0001, “method”).
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 4. As such, claim 12 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 5. As such, claim 13 is rejected for at least similar rational.
In regards to claim 14, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses generating, by a third processor-based system, the camera control parameters using a third processing algorithm, based on the current image frame and the previous image frame, if the level of change exceeds the second threshold and does not exceed the first threshold, wherein the third processor is a general purpose processor that consumes less power than the first processor, and the third processing algorithm is less computationally complex than the first processing algorithm and more computationally complex than the second processing algorithm, (see the rejection of claims 6 and 7 above for more details, as claim 14 is a combination of the claims 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 1. As such, claim 15 is rejected for at least similar rational.
The Examiner further acknowledged the following additional limitation(s): “At least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a process to be carried out for camera control”. However, Fleming discloses the “at least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium having instructions encoded thereon that, when executed by one or more processors, cause a process to be carried out for camera control”, (see at least: 0109, the program may be embodied in software stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium).
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 4. As such, claim 18 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 5. As such, claim 19 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 14. As such, claim 20 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Claim 3, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fleming et al, (US-PGPUB 20210109585) in view of Pottorff, (US-PGPUB US 20210109585)
In regards to claim 3, Fleming obviously discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming does not expressly disclose wherein the second processing algorithm is based on interpolation between the current image frame and the previous image frame.
Pottorff discloses wherein the second processing algorithm is based on interpolation between the current image frame and the previous image frame, (see at least: Par. 0130, as illustrated in FIG. 11, current frame 1102 and previous frame 1104 are blended by processor 1106 to generate interpolated frame 1110, [i.e., second processing algorithm is based on interpolation, “generate interpolated frame 1110”, between the current image frame and the previous image frame, “current frame 1102 and previous frame 1104”]).
Fleming and Pottorff are combinable because they are both concerned with motion detection. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fleming, to blend the current frame 1102 and previous frame 1104 by processor 1106, as though by Pottorff, in order to generate an intermediate video frame between the first video frame and the second video frame, (Pottorff, see at least: Abstract)
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. As such, claim 11 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 3. As such, claim 17 is rejected for at least similar rational.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMARA ABDI whose telephone number is (571)272-0273. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am-5:30pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/AMARA ABDI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 12/08/2025
Prosecution Insights