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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on August 30, 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the Japanese application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 6 – 7 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 6 – 7 recite the limitations “recognize the subject”. It seems that this should recite “perform image recognition” because recognition processing does not guarantee a result. What happens if there is no recognized subject? Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 10 – 13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 9 – 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,604,115. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 10 – 13 of the instant application are broader and fully encompassed by claims 1 and 9 – 11 of ‘115.
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.
(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, 3 – 5, 8 – 9 and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ikedo (US 2019/0191120).
Regarding claim 1, Ikedo discloses a photoelectric conversion device (fig. 20) comprising: an optical system (fig. 1; 102); a plurality of pixels (201), each provided with: a photoelectric conversion unit (303) configured to generate pulses in response to photons (fig. 3; ¶44, 54); a counter (306) configured to count the number of pulses (fig. 3; ¶44, 54); memory configured (307) to store a count value of the counter (fig. 3; ¶54); and one or more processors executing the instructions to: generate a signal based on the difference between the count value of the counter at the start time and end time of an accumulation period in the photoelectric conversion unit (fig. 22: ¶121-122: due to a reset after each “divided exposure period” (T1-T4), the difference between a count and 0 is the count), control a signal generated during a first accumulation period (T1) so that the signal is output during the period from the end of the first accumulation period (T1) to the end of a second accumulation period (T), wherein the first accumulation period being shorter than the second accumulation period, and wherein in one full-frame period, the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period are included (fig. 24); and set, in a sensor unit including the plurality of pixels, a first pixel region having at least the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period, and a second pixel region having at least the second accumulation period (fig. 2; each region is region 200).
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period overlap (figs. 22, 24).
Regarding claim 4, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period start simultaneously (figs. 22, 24).
Regarding claim 5, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the end of the second accumulation period coincides with the end of the full frame period (figs. 22, 24).
Regarding claim 8, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches further comprising a display unit configured to display the signal generated in the second accumulation period as an image (figs. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the sensor unit includes an avalanche photodiode (¶28).
Claims 18 – 19 are rejected as applied to claim 1 above. The method steps as claimed would have been implied by the apparatus of Ikeda.
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) 2, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Horikawa (US 2020/0111215).
Regarding claim 2, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further execute the instructions to set the first pixel region and the second pixel region based on the image that was read out from the sensor unit.
In a similar field of endeavor, Horikawa teaches an image sensor used for image recognition wherein a first image is taken of the full sensor area (24), then a secondary image is taken of only the region of interest (34) (fig. 4, 10; ¶36, 78-80). In light of the teaching of Horikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Horikawa’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a system capable of object recognition with high precision.
Regarding claim 14, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to set the first pixel region or the second pixel region according to distance information of a subject.
In a similar field of endeavor, Horikawa teaches an image sensor used for image recognition wherein a first image is taken of the full sensor area (24) which includes a distance image 20, then a secondary image is taken of only the region of interest (34) (fig. 4, 10; ¶36, 78-80). In light of the teaching of Horikawa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Horikawa’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in a system capable of object recognition with high precision.
Claim(s) 6 – 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kurane (US 2009/0147120).
Regarding claim 6, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to recognize a subject based on a signal generated in at least 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 7, Ikedo in view of Kurane discloses the limitations of claim 6. Kurane also teaches wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to recognize the subject based on a signal generated in the second accumulation period (¶6-11, 148).
Claim(s) 15 – 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Tsuchiya (US 2018/0316841).
Regarding claim 15, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to set the length of at least one of the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period based on luminance information of the signal generated in at least one of the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period.
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.
Regarding claim 16, Ikedo discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to control whether or not to perform predetermined processing in the control unit according to the luminance information of the signal that is generated in at least one of the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period.
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.
Claim(s) 17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Kim (US 2016/0110623).
Regarding claim 17, Ikedo discloses a movable apparatus (fig. 20) comprising: an optical system (fig. 1; 102); a plurality of pixels (201), each provided with: a photoelectric conversion unit (303) configured to generate pulses in response to photons (fig. 3; ¶44, 54); a counter (306) configured to count the number of pulses (fig. 3; ¶44, 54); memory configured (307) to store a count value of the counter (fig. 3; ¶54); and one or more processors executing the instructions to: generate a signal based on the difference between the count value of the counter at the start time and end time of an accumulation period in the photoelectric conversion unit (fig. 22: ¶121-122: due to a reset after each “divided exposure period” (T1-T4), the difference between a count and 0 is the count), control a signal generated during a first accumulation period (T1) so that the signal is output during the period from the end of the first accumulation period (T1) to the end of a second accumulation period (T), wherein the first accumulation period being shorter than the second accumulation period, and wherein in one full-frame period, the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period are included (fig. 24); and set, in a sensor unit including the plurality of pixels, a first pixel region having at least the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period, and a second pixel region having at least the second accumulation period (fig. 2; each region is region 200). Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose control the operation of the movable apparatus; and set the first pixel region or the second pixel region based on the control of the movement.
In a similar field of endeavor, Kim teaches setting a region of interest in a camera of a vehicle wherein when the vehicle is moved, the ROI is reset and adjusted (fig. 9; ¶108-110). In light of the teaching of Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use Kim’s teaching in Ikedo’s system because an artisan of ordinarily skill would recognize that this would result in more accurately detecting possible traffic and/or pedestrian abnormal behavior.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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
Prosecution Insights