CTNF 18/669,610 CTNF 84542 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 22, 2026 has been entered. Response to Amendment The amendment filed on May 22, 2026 in response to the previous Office Action (03/24/2026) is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1 – 5, 7, 9 – 14 and 16 – 17 are currently pending. Claims 6, 8 and 15 are cancelled. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action: Rejection under 112(b) Response to Arguments 07-37 AIA Applicant's arguments filed May 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 07-37-12 AIA Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3 – 5, 7, 9 – 12, 16 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 first signal based on a difference between a count value of the counter at a start of a first accumulation period and a count value of the counter at the end of the first 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 ), generate a second signal based on a difference between a count value of the counter at a start of a second accumulation period and a count value of the counter at an end of the second accumulation period (T1) (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 ), 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. 22, 24), and output the first signal between the end of the first accumulation period ( T1 ) and the end of the second accumulation period ( T ) (fig. 24); and output the second signal to a display unit to display an image based on the second signal after outputting the first signal (¶42). Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose perform image recognition processing on the first signal to generate a recognition result indicating an identified type of a subject. In a similar field of endeavor, Kurane teaches an image sensor used for inspection that includes shape recognition during exposure (¶50-59, 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 (¶50-59, 148). 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. Regarding claim 16, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 6. Kurane also teaches wherein the full frame period is divided into a plurality of divided frame periods, and wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to generate a plurality of first signals respectively corresponding to the plurality of divided frame periods and to repeatedly perform the image recognition processing at a period shorter than the full frame period (¶50-59, 148) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 and 17 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 a time at which the count value of the counter used to generate the first signal or the second signal is read out. 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. Regarding claim 17, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the plurality of pixels are arranged in a plurality of rows (fig. 2), and wherein the count values read out from the selected row are stored in buffers and sequentially output from the buffers during an accumulation period (¶55). Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to stop counting by the counters in a selected row when count values of the counters in the selected row are read out. 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 . 07-21-aia AIA 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 identified type of the subject indicated by the recognition result is a person or a vehicle. 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 calculate a recognition accuracy of the image recognition processing, and to change a length of the first accumulation period based on the recognition accuracy. 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. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 2 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 3 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 4 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 5 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 6 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 7 Art Unit: 2639 Application/Control Number: 18/669,610 Page 8 Art Unit: 2639
Prosecution Insights