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
The amendment filed on December 1, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (9/11/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Objection of claim 2
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, 11 and 20 includes the limitations “output first motion information based on a difference value between the first luminance information and the second luminance information is less than a first preset luminance threshold and is greater than or equal to a second preset luminance threshold, wherein the first motion information indicates a moving target exists based on the difference”.
The published specification, which discloses (1) “detection apparatus generates first motion information if the difference between the first luminance value and the second luminance value is greater than the first threshold, where the first motion information indicates that the difference between the first luminance value and the second luminance value is greater than the first threshold, or the detection apparatus generates second motion information if the difference between the first luminance value and the second luminance value is less than the second threshold” (¶96); and (2) “when the difference value between the first luminance information and the second luminance information is less than or equal to the threshold, the motion information is generated, where the motion information indicates that no difference exists between the first luminance information and the second luminance information” (¶110); and (3) “difference value between the first luminance information and the second luminance information is less than or equal to a threshold includes the following. The difference between the first luminance value and the second luminance value is less than or equal to the first threshold, OR the difference between the first luminance value and the second luminance value is greater than or equal to the second threshold. That is, T2≤Idiff<T1.” (¶111).
The specification is contradictory to the claims and also to itself. Mainly, part (3), which the applicant pointed to support current amendments appears to be disclosing that when a difference is less than or equal to the threshold (i.e. when no moving target is detected), the use of two thresholds can be used. However, (3) also contradicts itself with the equation presented, which indicates that the difference, Idiff, is less than T1 (not less than or equal to as stated above it) and greater than or equal to T2. However, no part of the specification in the specification indicates that the difference is less than or equal to the T2 and greater than or equal to T1, as currently claimed. Thus, the added limitation is not supported by the specification. For purposes of art examination, the Examiner will use broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claims 2 – 10 and 12 – 19 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1 or claim 11.
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)(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.
(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 – 2, 5, 7, 9 – 12, 15 – 16 and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Farrier (US 2006/0146161).
Regarding claim 1, Farrier discloses an apparatus comprising: a first pixel system (fig. 9: two diode photodetectors); a second pixel system (fig. 9: two diode photodetectors); and at least one processor configured to: control the first pixel system to be exposed for a first duration; control the second pixel system to be exposed for a second duration (¶105, 110: The difference in integration time between the two detectors is t2-t1 or TintA-TintB where signal values SA and SB are proportionate to It1 and It2 and I is the photon flux at the pixel which is considered constant for this illustration); obtain first luminance information by exposing the first pixel system for the first duration, wherein the first luminance information indicates a first luminance; obtain second luminance information by exposing the second pixel system for the second duration, wherein the second luminance information indicates a second luminance (¶110: signal values SA and SB are proportionate to lt1 and lt2); and output first motion information based the subtracted signal is SA-SB=I(t2-t1)).
Regarding claim 2, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier also teaches further comprising: a first conversion system (108, 110) and configured to convert, using a first conversion gain, a first charge into a first voltage value, wherein the first charge is from exposing the first pixel system for the first duration (¶87, 89: a large signal, wide dynamic range amplifier utilizing the combined photodiode 14 capacitance Cpd and sense node, Cnode 1 (108) capacitances and optional capacitor 110 with shutter gate 42 between the source-follower transistor M1 (114) and the detector/sense node, Cnode 1, (108) …and first relatively lower gain), wherein the first luminance information is based on the first voltage value (¶89: Each pixel 10 further includes a second photodetector 14B for receiving incident light and generating an output charge and a second relatively higher gain); and a second conversion system (fig. 9, 210) and configured to convert, using a second conversion gain, a second charge into a second voltage value, wherein the second charge is from exposing the second pixel system for the second duration (¶89: Each pixel 10 further includes a second photodetector 14B for receiving incident light and generating an output charge and a second relatively higher gain), wherein the second luminance information is based on the second voltage value, wherein the first conversion gain to the second conversion gain has a first ratio, wherein the first duration to the second duration has a second ratio, and wherein the first ratio is inversely proportional to the second ratio (¶104, 112: the amplifiers must first be calibrated and adjusted for balance so as to remove the effect of the gain offset difference from the output….The two lines are separated from each other, but with gain compensation they would essentially have the same values).
Regarding claim 4, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier also teaches wherein a first start moment of the first duration is the same as a second start moment of the second duration, or wherein a first end moment of the first duration is the same as a second end moment of the second duration (¶108: For the case where two detectors are contained within the pixel, integration of signals sent to nodes A and B can begin simultaneously).
Regarding claim 5, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier also teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: further output the first motion information when a difference value between the first luminance information and the second luminance information is greater than a threshold, wherein the first motion information indicates the difference exists; and output second motion information when the difference value is less than or equal to the threshold, wherein the second motion information indicates no difference exists between the first luminance information and the second luminance information (¶112: The pixel(s) imaging the moving object will have different detector outputs for each of the two detectors, and after the subtraction operation, would produce the non-zero difference signal at 510. The subtraction of the two pixels (and more preferably taking the absolute value of the signal difference), is indicated in the line 508 representing a difference signal. This signal has a null or close to null value for most pixels (with gain control), and the different detector outputs for the pixel representing the moving object is indicated at 510).
Regarding claim 7, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier also teaches further comprising a pixel array comprising the first pixel system and the second pixel system, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control exposure of the pixel array; and output image information based on a luminance information set, wherein the luminance information set comprises the first luminance information and the second luminance information (¶112: upper line 504 of FIG. 17 indicates the signal from the first detector and the lower line 506 indicates the signal from the second detector).
Regarding claim 9, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier also teaches further comprising a pixel array comprising pixel pairs, wherein each of the pixel pairs comprises two pixel systems, wherein the first pixel system and the second pixel system are of one of the pixel pairs, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: control exposure of pixel systems in the pixel pairs, wherein an exposure duration of the two pixel systems in each of the pixel pairs is different (¶105: two diode photodetectors (FIG. 9), each coupled to a separate charge to voltage conversion amplifier, where the first photodetector is connected to amplifier A and the second is connected to amplifier B, the same method of utilizing different integration times for the two amplifiers and performing real time signal differentiation to detect moving objects can be applied); obtain two pieces of third luminance information of each of the pixel pairs (¶104: performing real time signal differentiation, i.e., subtraction, of the separate outputs of the two amplifiers. Since the data sets representing outputs of amplifiers A and B); obtain pieces of second motion information corresponding to the pixel pairs; determine, based on the pieces of second motion information, a first pixel region corresponding to a moving target in the pixel array; obtain control information to output image information corresponding to the first pixel region (¶115: moving objects in an image have been detected using the described signal subtraction procedure, the photodetector pixel addresses for the moving objects can be ascertained and such pixel addresses can be used for a variety of purposes including determination of the velocity and direction of the objects as well as geolocation); and output, in response to the control information, the image information based on a luminance information set corresponding to the first pixel region (¶115: photodetector pixel addresses for the moving objects can be ascertained and such pixel addresses can be used for a variety of purposes).
Regarding claim 10, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 9. Farrier also teaches wherein the pixel array further comprises pixel pair regions, wherein one of the pixel pair regions comprises at least two of the pixel pairs, and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: determine original motion information of each of the pixel pairs based on the two pieces of the third luminance information; and filter pieces of original motion information corresponding to the at least two of the pixel pairs to obtain third motion information corresponding to each pixel pair in the one of the pixel pair regions (¶115: photodetector pixel addresses for the moving objects can be ascertained and such pixel addresses can be used for a variety of purposes).
Claims 11 – 12, 14, 15, 16 and 18 – 19 are rejected as applied to claim 1 – 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 – 10 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Farrier.
Claim 20 are rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Farrier.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrier in view of Sekine (JP 2014116762A (machine translation)).
Regarding claim 3, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first pixel system and the second pixel system are two adjacent pixel systems of a same color.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sekine teaches a motion detection imaging device with long and short exposure times with repeated arrangement of color blocks (fig. 13; ¶77). In light of the teaching of Sekine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Sekine’s configuration in Farrier system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved motion detection accuracy and reduced power consumption.
Regarding claim 6, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first pixel system shares one microlens with the second pixel system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sekine teaches a motion detection imaging device with long and short exposure times with repeated arrangement of color blocks wherein size of a pixel is usually controlled by the size of the microlens on the top surface of the
pixel (fig. 13; ¶77). In light of the teaching of Sekine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Sekine’s configuration in Farrier system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved motion detection accuracy and reduced power consumption.
Regarding claim 13, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 11. Farrier fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first pixel system and the second pixel system are two adjacent pixel systems of a same color, and wherein the first pixel system shares one microlens with the second pixel system.
In a similar field of endeavor, Sekine teaches a motion detection imaging device with long and short exposure times with repeated arrangement of color blocks wherein size of a pixel is usually controlled by the size of the microlens on the top surface of the
pixel (fig. 13; ¶77). In light of the teaching of Sekine, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Sekine’s configuration in Farrier system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in improved motion detection accuracy and reduced power consumption.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Farrier in view of Panasonic (EP 3484141B1).
Regarding claim 8, Farrier discloses the limitations of claim 1. Farrier fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a pixel array comprising the first pixel system and the second pixel system, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: output control information when the first motion information indicates the difference exists; and output, in response to the control information, image information corresponding to the pixel array based on a luminance information set corresponding to the pixel array.
In a similar field of endeavor, Panasonic teaches an image processing device with multiple exposures times wherein movement blending ratio calculator 120 calculates a blending ratio between pixels so that a blending ratio of the short-exposure image has a positive correlation with the movement detection amount indicating the movement of the subject. This is because the subject image of the long-exposure image is highly probably blurred in the image block detected to have a large movement (¶33). In light of the teaching of Panasonic, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Panasonic’s teaching in Farrier system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in reduction of a block distortion of an image after synthesis.
Claim 13 is rejected as applied to claim 8 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Farrier in view of Panasonic.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTOINETTE T. SPINKS whose telephone number is (571)270-3749. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7am - 5pm 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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406. 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.
/ANTOINETTE T SPINKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639