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 .
Claim Interpretation
Claim 17 (independent claim) has 2 optional steps (“maximum charge pulse width is provided to a multiply and add switch charge circuit or neuron”), however, claim 18 define one of the steps which makes claim 18 optional. Applicant is required to either cancel the claims or rewrite them in proper form, since it is unclear which option the applicant is trying to consider.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nerheim et al referred herein as Nerheim (U.S. Patent No. 11,248,880).
As to claims 17 and 18, Neirham teaches a calibration circuit comprising:
wherein a maximum charge pulse width is provided to a multiply and add switch charge circuit or neuron and local charge movement device magnitudes are adjusted against the maximum pulse width so as to replicate said maximum pulse width for a weight magnitude of 1 (col 5 lines 9-33 and col 8 lines 23-34)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nerheim et al referred herein as Nerheim (U.S. Patent No. 11,248,880) in view of Takemura et al. referred herein as Takemura (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2004/0165091).
As to claim 19, Neirham teaches all the limitations of claim 17 as discussed above.
Neirham does not teach:
wherein the maximum pulse width is set in conformance with a CMOS image sensor global shutter device.
However, Takemura teaches:
wherein the maximum pulse width is set in conformance with a CMOS image sensor global shutter device. (para 226)
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to use CMOS sensors in Neirham as taught by Takemura. Motivation to do so comes from the knowledge taught by Takemura that doing so would reduce the information content of the image signal subject to image signal processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEINA ELCHANTI whose telephone number is (313)446-6561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at 571-272-4602. 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.
/ZEINA ELCHANTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights