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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to the Amendment filed on 1/20/2026.
In the Instant Amendment, Claim(s) 1, 5-6, 10 and 14-15 has/have been amended; Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are independent claims. Claims 1-18 have been examined and are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
The claim objections for having informalities and the 112(b) rejections are withdrawn because of the amendment and the persuasive argument in the remark (page 7).
Applicant's arguments filed 1/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Yao reference, the Applicant is arguing in the remarks (pages 8-9) that Yai teaches away the limitations “setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The limitations are claiming for setting the transition time interval satisfying the claimed expression “an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value”. The Examiner respectfully submits that Yai does disclose, suggest or teach setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value (Fig. 3; the transition time interval [the sum of (“LOW FPS” interval, “Re” interval, first “High FPS” interval)] is shorter than FT_1 as shown in figure 3; plugging the variables to the claimed expression “an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value” to obtain abs(the transition time interval - FT_1) < FT_2).
Regarding Suzuki reference, the Applicant is arguing in the remarks (pages 9-10) that Suzuki fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value” for the presented reasons.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. The Examiner respectfully submits that Suzuki does disclose, suggest or teach setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value (please see below in the 102 rejection section regarding the reproduced Fig. 11 with additional annotations FT1-FT3; because frame rate is the same, intervals FT1-FT3 are the same; therefore |FT1-FT2|=0 which is smaller than FT3).
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value” in the (c) step 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. The specification does show the transition time interval TT is set to increase to TT’ in figure 2 and the transition time interval TT is set to decrease to TT’ in figure 3. However, these is not the same as setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value. There is no explicit description that is reasonable to support the claimed “absolute difference”. If the Applicant believes otherwise, the Applicant is welcome to point out where in the specification the explicit support for the features as claimed.
Regarding claim 6, claim 6 is also claiming the claimed “absolute difference” which has the same issue as presented in claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depending from claim 1 recites “the predetermined value is 0” which defines the predetermined value is 0 for the claimed expression “an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value” in claim 1. The combination of claims 9 and 1 now reads an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than zero. This 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. Para. 0026 describes “In FIG.3(b), the transition time interval is set by the processing circuit 113 such that a difference between the transition time interval and a first frame duration between adjacent first sensing frames is smaller than a predetermined value. As above-mentioned, as shown in FIG.3(b), the first frame duration FD_1 is determined by a time interval between readout of two adjacent first sensing frames. In one embodiment, the predetermined value is 0, which means the transition time interval is adjusted to be equal to the first frame duration.” However, this is not the same as the claimed expression “an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than zero”. If the Applicant believes otherwise, the Applicant is welcome to point out where in the specification the explicit support for the features as claimed.
Regarding claims 10, 15 and 18, claims 10, 15 and 18 reciting features corresponding to claims 1, 6 and 9 are also rejected for the same above reasons, respectively.
Remaining dependent claims are also rejected for being dependent of the base claims.
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.
Claims 9 and 18 are 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.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 depending from claim 1 recites “the predetermined value is 0” which defines the predetermined value is 0 for the claimed expression “an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value” in claim 1. The combination of claims 9 and 1 now reads an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than zero. Mathematically, |x|>=0 and there is no absolute number of x that is smaller than 0. It is unclear how the claimed expression is possible.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 recites features corresponding to claim 9 is also rejected for the same reason.
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 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, 4, 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao et al (US 20200128190 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yao teaches An image sensor control method, applied to an image senor, comprising:
(a) outputting first sensing frames (LOW FPS frames) by the image sensor in a first mode (LOW FPS mode), wherein a first frame time duration (FT_1) is determined between adjacent ones of the first sensing frames (Fig. 3);
(b) switching from the first mode to a second mode (High FPS mode) in a transition time interval (Fig. 3) (para. 0026: “the frame rate switch will be triggered at the time point TP_St. Immediately after a reset operation Re, the image sensor 201 is switched to a high frame rate at the time point TP_Sr without waiting the lapsed of the second frame period”);
(c) setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value (Fig. 3; the transition time interval [the sum of (“LOW FPS” interval, “Re” interval, first “High FPS” interval)] is shorter than FT_1 as shown in figure 3; plugging the variables to the claimed expression “an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value” to obtain abs(the transition time interval - FT_1) < FT_2); and
(d) outputting second sensing frames (High FPS frames) by the image sensor in the second mode (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Yao teaches the image sensor control method of claim 1, wherein one of the first sensing frames is readout at a starting time point of the transition time interval and one of the second sensing frames is readout at an end time point of the transition time interval (Figs. 3, 7; para. 0034).
Regarding claim 10, Yao teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Yao teaches An image capturing device (Fig. 2; para. 0022), comprising:
an image sensor (201); and
a processing circuit (203), configured to perform following steps: (as presented in claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 reciting features corresponding to claim 4 is also rejected for the same reasons above.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 10, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 20200128190 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
1015
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches An image sensor control method, applied to an image senor, comprising:
(a) outputting first sensing frames by the image sensor in a first mode (drive mode A), wherein a first frame time duration (FT1) is determined between adjacent ones of the first sensing frames (Fig. 11);
(b) switching from the first mode to a second mode (drive mode B) in a transition time interval (Fig. 12; the transition time interval = FT2);
(c) setting the transition time interval such that an absolute difference between the transition time interval and the first frame time duration is smaller than a predetermined value (Fig. 11; because frame rate is the same, intervals FT1-FT3 are the same; therefore |FT1-FT2|=0 which is smaller than FT3); and
(d) outputting second sensing frames by the image sensor in the second mode (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki teaches the image sensor control method of claim 1, wherein one of the first sensing frames is readout at a starting time point of the transition time interval and one of the second sensing frames is readout at an end time point of the transition time interval (Fig. 11).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches the image sensor control method of claim 1, wherein one of the first mode and the second mode is a full size mode and the other one of the first mode and the second mode is a binning mode (Fig. 11; paras. 0055-0056; drive mode A (control without addition) and drive mode B (control with addition)).
Regarding claim 10, Suzuki teaches everything as claimed in claim 1. In addition, Suzuki teaches An image capturing device (Fig. 6), comprising:
an image sensor (4); and
a processing circuit (12, 14), configured to perform following steps: (as presented in claim 1).
Regarding claims 13 and 17, claims 13 and 17 reciting features corresponding to claims 4 and 8 are also rejected for the same reasons above, respectively.
Notes
No applicable prior arts were found applicable to address features of claims 2-3, 5-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16 and 18 in combination with all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quan Pham whose telephone number is (571)272-4438. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-7pm.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at (571) 272-7564. 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.
/Quan Pham/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
Prosecution Insights