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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's response to the last office action, filed July 6, 2026 has been entered and made of record. Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 12-15, and 18-20 are amended; claim 8 is cancelled; and claim 21 is newly added. By this amendment, claims 1-7, 9-21 are pending for examination.
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C 112(b), is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, and 9-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 21 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
-- Specie of Fig. 3, corresponding to claims 1-7, 9-20
-- Specie of Fig. 4, corresponding to claim 21
The species are independent or distinct because they have mutually exclusive characteristics. For example, in the Specie of Fig. 3, the one or more camera control parameters are determined based comparing the level of change of the current frame and the previous frame to two thresholds, while in the Specie of Fig, 4, the 3A the one or more camera control parameters are designated based on determination as to whether the 3A processing has converged to provide parameters that achieve desired levels of focus, exposure, white balance. In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, there is no generic claim.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply: the prior art applicable to one Specie would not likely be applicable to another specie.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 21 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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 view of Qi et al, (US-PGPUB 20230319395)
Regarding claim 1, Fleming discloses a system, (102 in Fig. 1), the system
comprising:
interface circuitry, (Fig. 1, computing device 102);
instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed based on the instructions, (Fig. 1, implicit by processor(s) 106), to:
quantify a level of change between a current image frame from a camera and a previous image frame from 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]);
performing first processing algorithm to generate one or more camera control parameters, based on the level of change exceeding a first threshold, (see at least: Par. 0271, 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 processing algorithm”, during the streaming mode relative to the computing device 102, in 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., performing first processing algorithm, “the computing device 102 implicitly includes one or more algorithms”, to generate one or more camera control parameters, “auto-exposure parameters associated with the images”, based on the level of change exceeding 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”]); and
perform a second processing algorithm to generate one or more camera control parameters, based on the level of change not exceeding a second threshold, the second threshold less than or equal to the first threshold, (see at least: 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 processing algorithm”, during the wake-on-motion mode relative to the low power operations controller 130, in 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., perform a second processing algorithm, “the computing device 102 implicitly includes one or more algorithms”, to generate one or more camera control parameters, “auto-exposure parameters associated with the images”, based on the level of change not exceeding 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”]).
Fleming does not expressly disclose that the first processing algorithm is configured to process color versions of the current image frame and the previous image frame; and the second processing algorithm is configured to process greyscale versions of the current image frame and the previous image frame.
However, Qi et al discloses the first processing algorithm to process color versions of the current image frame and the previous image frame, (see at least: Fig. 4A, Par. 0124, as shown in FIG. 4A, a second data transmission channel 402 is located between the target camera and the first ISP, and is used to send, to the first ISP in a normal mode, second image data obtained by the target camera by capturing a second image, … the second image data sent to the first ISP through the second data transmission channel may be data of an image with a high image output specification and high quality, for example, data of a color image with high resolution), [i.e., first processing algorithm to process color versions of the current image frame and the previous image frame, “implicitly processing the second image data obtained by the target camera by the ISP, which the second image is color image consisting of RGB channels”); and
the second processing algorithm is configured to process greyscale versions of the current image frame and the previous image frame, (see at least: Fig. 4A, 6C, Par. 0124, a first data transmission channel 401 is located between the security zone and the target camera in the second processing module shown in FIG. 4A, and is used to send, in the low power consumption mode, first image data obtained by the target camera by capturing a first image to the security zone, … first image data sent to the security zone through the first data transmission channel may be data of an image with a low image output specification, for example, data of a grayscale image with low resolution), [i.e., the second processing algorithm, “second control unit”, is configured to process greyscale versions of the current image frame and the previous image frame, “implicitly processing the first image data obtained by the target camera, with the sensor control unit, which the first image data is a grayscale image, and has only one gray value and one channel “]).
Fleming and Qi are combinable because they are both concerned with power consumption reduction for electronic devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to modify Fleming, to use the first data transmission channel 401, and the second data transmission channel 402, as though by Qi, in order to captures an image at low power consumption by default, and captures an image at high power consumption only when there is a camera service, to thereby reduce a power consumption of the electronic device as much as possible, (Par. 0008)
Regarding claim 2, The combination of Fleming and Qi as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein 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; and from 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]).
Regarding claim 4, The combination of Fleming and Qi as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the one or more camera control parameters include at least one of an auto-focus parameter, an auto-exposure parameter, white balance parameter, or a video stabilization parameter, (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”]).
Regarding claim 5, The combination of Fleming and Qi as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit 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 from the camera, and gyroscope data from 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”]).
Regarding claim 6, The combination of Fleming and Qi as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to:
Perform a third processing algorithm to generate the one or more camera control parameters, based on the level of change satisfying the second threshold and not satisfying 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., Perform a third processing algorithm, “the computing device 102 implicitly includes one or more algorithms”, to generate the one or more camera control parameters, ““auto-exposure parameters associated with the images”, based on the level of change satisfying the second threshold and not satisfying 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”]).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Fleming and Qi as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
Fleming further discloses wherein the third processor algorithm is less computationally complex than the first processing algorithm, and the third processor algorithm is 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”]).
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 method”. 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.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 recites substantially similar limitations as set forth in claim 6. As such, claim 14 is rejected for at least similar rational.
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 computer readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause at least one processor circuit to at least …”. However, Fleming discloses the “At least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions to cause at least one processor circuit …”, (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 and Qi, as applied to claim 1 above; and further in view of Pottorff, (US-PGPUB US 20210109585)
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fleming and Qi as whole discloses the limitations of claim 1.
The combination of Fleming and Qi as whole 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, Qi, 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 the combination of Fleming and Qi, 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.
Conclusion
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.
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 08/28/2026
Prosecution Insights