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 November 26, 2025 in response to the previous Office Action (08/28/2025) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 15 are currently pending.
Claims 6 are cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Rejection under 112(b) of claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that Ikedo, Schmitt, and Kurane fail to disclose, teach, or suggest the recited features of amended claim 1, specifically “recognize a type of a subject based on the signal generated during a first accumulation period” and “perform control so that a recognition result and a signal generated during the first accumulation period are output between the end of the first accumulation period and the end of a second accumulation period”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Kurane teaches using non-destructive readout to take intermediate output values improve speed and accuracy of object recognition (¶6-11; fig. 9; ¶127: in a first sub-frame period, the quickly-taken-image data generation unit 12c receives the fourth sub-sample image data from the image taking system 10 and reads out the third sub-sample image data from the frame memory 12h; ¶117: if an image of an subject moving fast is taken, the color or texture of the subject is accurately grasped from an image formed from a pixel signal corresponding to the normal exposure time and the shape or movement of the subject is accurately grasped from an image formed from a pixel signal corresponding to an exposure time shorter than the normal exposure time).
Ikeda teaches photon-counting system which non-destructively reads intermediate counts from a first accumulation period (T1) during second accumulation period (T2) (fig. 24; ¶115).
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.
Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 15 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.
Claims 1 and 10 – 12 recite the limitations “recognize a type of a subject”. It seems that this should recite something similar to “perform image recognition to recognize an image and identify a type” because recognition processing does not guarantee a result.
Claims 1 and 10 – 12 recites the limitation "the signal generated during a first accumulation period…" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 1 and 10 – 12 recite the limitation “a recognition result and a signal generated during the first accumulation signal…”. Is this signal the same signal used for object recognition or the same signal generated based on count? Or is this a different signal completely? For purposes of art examination, broadest reasonable interpretation will be exercised.
Claims 2 – 5, 7 – 9, and 13 – 15 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claims 13 recite the limitations “the type of the subject is people or vehicles”. Are these the only subjects recognized? Or are these the only subjects that would be output as a result?
Claims 14 recites the limitation "the accuracy…" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are:
Regarding claim 14, how the accuracy of the recognition result determined. Based on the claim and claim 1, from which it depends, there is no indication of how accuracy would be determined once recognition is complete.
Regarding claim 15, how the brightness of the subject is determined. Based on the claim and claim 1, from which it depends, there is no indication of how brightness is measured and how that would be applied or compared for changing the first accumulation period.
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) 1, 3 – 5, 7 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kurane (US 2009/0147120).
Regarding claim 1, Ikedo discloses a photoelectric conversion device (fig. 20) comprising: a plurality of pixels (201) each including a sensor unit (303) that emits pulses according to incident photons, and a counter (306) that counts the number of pulses (fig. 3; ¶22, 32); one or more memories storing instructions; and one or more processors executing the instructions to generate a signal based on a difference between a count value of the counter at the start of an accumulation period and a count value of the counter at the end of the accumulation period (fig. 22: ¶99-100: due to a reset after each “divided exposure period” (T1-T4), the difference between a count and 0 is the count), and perform control so that a signal generated during a first accumulation period (T1) is output between the end of the first accumulation period (T1) and the end of a second accumulation period (T), the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period being included in a full frame period, and the first accumulation period being shorter than the second accumulation period (fig. 24). Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to recognize a subject based on at least a signal generated during the first accumulation period.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kurane teaches an image sensor used for inspection that includes shape recognition during exposure (¶6-11, 148). In light of the teaching of Kurane, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kurane’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a system capable of determining a subject without visual inspection.
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period overlap each other (figs. 22, 24).
Regarding claim 4, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period start at the same time (figs. 22, 24).
Regarding claim 5, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the end of the second accumulation period matches the end of the full frame period (figs. 22, 24).
Regarding claim 7, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 6. Kurane also teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to further recognize the subject based on a signal generated during the second accumulation period (¶6-11, 148).
Regarding claim 8, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to display at least a signal generated during the second accumulation period as an image (figs. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the sensor unit is constituted by an avalanche photodiode (¶28).
Claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 11 and 12 are rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Ikedo in view of Kurane.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kurane in view of Schmitt et al. (US 2014/0166861).
Regarding claim 2, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to perform control so that counting in the counter is stopped at the time of reading out the count value of the counter.
In a similar field of endeavor, Schmitt teaches a single photon counting detector system having an improved counter architecture including a readout chip that contains independently working channels; wherein each channel has a charge sensitive preamp, gain stages and a counter, and each channel can count single photons independently of the other channels; wherein an image requires two phases: 1) acquisition mode (where the counters count the incoming photons) and 2) readout mode (where the counting is disabled and the number of counts per channel are read out) (¶4). In light of the teaching of Schmitt, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Schmitt’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in only counting during the accumulation period and reducing noise and power consumption.
Claim(s) 13 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kurane in view of Miyake (US 2021/0195085).
Regarding claim 13, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the type of the subject is people or vehicles.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miyake teaches an image recognition system wherein a processing circuit that receives a first image obtained by performing multiple-exposure image capturing of a first subject and uses the first image to calculate a recognition accuracy of the first subject; wherein the subject can be a house, car , person or tree (fig. 3, 7; ¶149, 188). In light of the teaching of Miyake, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Miyake’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in increasing the accuracy of information processing using images.
Regarding claim 14, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to change a length of the first accumulation period based on the accuracy of the recognition result.
In a similar field of endeavor, Miyake teaches an image recognition system wherein a processing circuit that receives a first image obtained by performing multiple-exposure image capturing of a first subject and uses the first image to calculate a recognition accuracy of the first subject; and a control circuit that changes a condition of the multiple-exposure image capturing in a case where the recognition accuracy is lower than a recognition accuracy threshold (¶5, 64). In light of the teaching of Miyake, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Miyake’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in increasing the accuracy of information processing using images.
Claim(s) 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kurane in view of Tsuchiya (US 2018/0316841).
Regarding claim 15, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to change a length of the first accumulation period based on a brightness of the subject.
In a similar field of endeavor, Tsuchiya teaches an image system wherein the image pickup apparatus controller 104 changes the exposure value when an object luminance is changed (¶56). In light of the teaching of Tsuchiya, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Tsuchiya teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in exposure control in accordance with changes in luminance of an object while suppressing degradation of the quality of a moving image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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