DETAILED ACTION
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2024, 12/10/2024 and 06/24/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 2, 4 and 13 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.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the preceding image signal” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the amount of data” in lines 1-2 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the moveable apparatus" in the second last line of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, claim also 13 recites “A photoelectric comprising:” The subject matter of the preamble is vague or not clear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 3, 11, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikedo (US 2019/0191120 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ikedo discloses a photoelectric conversion device (Figs. 1 & 2) comprising:
a plurality of pixels (201 in Fig. 2), each of which includes a sensor unit that emits pulses in accordance with photons, a counter (306 in Fig. 3) that counts the number of the pulses, and a memory (307 in Fig. 3) that stores a count value of the counter (see par. [0044],[0050], [0054]-[0055]);
one or more memories storing instructions (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium disclosed in par. [0146]); and one or more processors (CPU 104 in Fig. 1, par. [0146]) executing the instructions to:
generate an image signal on the basis of a difference between count values of the counter at the time of a start (beginning of T1 in Fig. 24) and at the time of an end of an accumulation period (at the end of T4 in Fig. 24)(see Fig. 23 and par. [0133], [0135]); and
perform a preceding reading operation of reading the count value in a middle of a full-frame period (i.e., readings at T2, T3 in Fig. 24) and perform image signal reading processing such that a period of time for the preceding reading operation (e.g., T1, or T2 or T3) is shorter than a period of time (all T1+T2+T3+T4) for reading a main image signal configured by counter values of the plurality of pixels stored in the full-frame period (see Fig. 24 and par. [0135]-[0144], wherein a period of time for preceding reading operation, for example T1, T2 or T3, is shorter than the period of time for the main image which is the total time T1+T2+T3+T4).
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo also discloses that other image signals are read between the preceding reading operation and a reading operation of the main image signal (see Fig. 24 and par. [0135]-[0144] in which short exposed image signals at T2 and T3 are read before the fully exposed main image signal at total exposure of T1+T2+T3+T4) is read).
Regarding claim 11, as also disclosed by Ikedo, the sensor unit includes an avalanche photodiode (Fig. 3 and par. [0044]).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the subject matter of these claims are also met by the disclosure of Ikedo as discussed in claim 1. Note that “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is disclosed in par. [0146].
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.
Claims 4, 6, 7, 9 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2019/0014281 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Ikedo is silent about [the] amount of data is reduced when the preceding image signal is generated. However, as taught by Kobayashi, special decimation (i.e., lower resolution) may be performed to reduce a number of pixels to be read out in order to shorten the readout time of a preceding image signal (Kobayashi, Figs. 2B & 3 and par. [0038]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to configure the device in Ikedo in view of Kobayashi to achieve the claimed feature for the benefit of shortening readout time of the preceding image signal.
Regarding claim 6, it is seen in the combined teaching of Ikedo and Kobayashi that the amount of data is reduced by thinning out and reading pixels in rows or columns when the preceding image signal is generated (see Kobayashi, par. [0038], wherein the number of pixels are decimated or known as thinning out).
Regarding claim 7, as further seen in the combination of Ikedo and Kobayashi, the amount of data is reduced by reading counter values of pixels in a partial region from among the plurality of pixels when the preceding image signal is generated (Kobayashi, par. [0038], wherein the spatial decimation during readout encompasses “reading counter values of pixels in a partial region” as not all pixel count values are read out).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ikedo and Kobayashi further discloses that a reduction rate of the amount of data is controlled on the basis of a brightness of ambient light (see Fig. 7 and par. [0068], wherein the reduction rate of data is reduced on the basis of incident light intensity).
Regarding claim 12, the subject matter of this claim is met by the combined teaching of Ikedo and Kobayashi as discussed in claims 1, 4 and 6 in which a number of pixels are thinned out, hence a lower resolution image is read out.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kobayashi et al. and in further of Nakamura (JP 2003189183 A).
Regarding claim 10, although the combined teaching of Ikedo and Kobayashi teaches spatial decimation as discussed in the preceding claims above, they fail to explicitly teach that the amount of data is reduced by thinning out and reading pixels in rows or columns in a case where an amount of ambient light is equal to or greater than a predetermined value and reduces the amount of data by adding count values of the plurality of pixels in a case where an amount of ambient light is less than the predetermined value. Nakamura, however, teaches an imaging device that is capable of switching between different spatial decimation modes. Under a high ambient light condition, pixel values are read out in a thinning mode. Under a low ambient light condition, pixel values are read out and added in a summing mode so that sensitivity of the device is improved while maintaining a good dynamic range (see Nakamura, Abstract, par. [0027] & [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging device to incorporate the teaching of Nakamura to arrive at the currently claimed invention for the benefit of improving sensitivity and dynamic range at different lighting conditions.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Nakamura (JP 2003189183 A).
Regarding claim 5, although Ikedo fails to teach that [the] amount of data is reduced by adding count values of the plurality of pixels when preceding signal is generated, this feature is well known in the art as taught by Nakamura as discussed in claim 10 above in which an imaging device that is capable of switching between different spatial decimation modes. Under a high ambient light condition, pixel values are read out in a thinning mode. Under a low ambient light condition, pixel values are read out and added in a summing mode so that sensitivity of the device is improved while maintaining a good dynamic range (see Nakamura, Abstract, par. [0027] & [0028]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the imaging device to incorporate the teaching of Nakamura to arrive at the currently claimed invention for the benefit of improving sensitivity and dynamic range at different lighting conditions.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Maehashi (US 2021/0151481 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Ikedo teaches a display unit (106) for displaying the main image for visual recognition (Fig. 1 and par. [0042]). Ikedo fails to teach that the preceding image signal is used for object recognition. In the same field of endeavor, Maehashi teaches object recognition (by 1308) is performed in real time at high frame rate based on captured images to assist collision avoidance of a vehicle (par. [0077], [0082]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have configure the apparatus in Ikedo in view of Maehashi to implement object recognition feature on the basis of the preceding image signal so as to enable a safety feature in a vehicle.
Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kobayashi et al. and in further view of Maehashi.
Regarding claim 8, as discussed in claim 4, the reduction of the amount of data is determined based on the preceding image signal to shorten the reading time for faster processing but lack of disclosure on the basis of accuracy of object recognition. However, as taught by Maehashi, object recognition is taken into consideration for detecting and recognizing an object based on the captured image signals in real time to provide collision avoidance of a vehicle (see the discussion in claim 2 above).
For that reason, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings from Ikedo, Kobayashi and Maehashi to obtain the feature being claimed for the benefit of providing collision avoidance of a vehicle.
Regarding claim 13, the combined teaching of Ikedo and Kobayashi and Maehashi also discloses a photometric conversion device comprising all limitations as discussed in claims 1, 2 and 12. Note that “the movable apparatus” is disclosed as a vehicle having the imaging device mounted thereon disclosed by Maehashi as mentioned in claim 2 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/NHAN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638