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 July 27, 2026, in response to the previous Office Action (04/27/2026) is acknowledged and has been entered.
Claims 1, 3 – 9, and 14 – 19 are currently pending.
Claims 2 and 10 – 13 are cancelled.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the following objections/rejections in the last Office Action:
Rejection under 112(b)
Double Patenting Rejection
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 27, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits “Ikedo fails to disclose every feature of amended independent claim 1. Ikedo is directed to "an image sensor for counting the number of incident photons and outputting a counted value." (Ikedo, para. [0001].) Paragraph [0135] of Ikedo discloses: In FIG. 24, as in the fifth embodiment, the exposure period T from time t702 to time t703 is divided into four divided exposure periods T1 to T4, and a pixel signal is read from each pixel to the frame memory 2301 for each divided exposure period. However, unlike the fifth embodiment, the count value of the counter circuit 306 is not reset after reading the pixel signal to the frame memory 2301. Therefore, Ikedo does not "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," as recited in amended and original independent claim 1. Further, Ikedo fails to disclose "wherein the one or more processors set the first pixel region as an attention region based on a result of image recognition performed based on an image that has been read out from the sensor unit," as recited in amended independent claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ikedo discloses setting the accumulation period of the first pixel region to the first accumulation period (Ikedo, Figs. 2 and 24, The first and second pixel regions have both the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period.). That is, Ikedo uses the same accumulation periods over the entire image sensor. Therefore, Ikedo discloses “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”.
Applicant’s arguments are directed solely to the claimed invention as amended 07/27/2026, which has been rejected under new ground of rejection necessitated by amendment. See rejection below for full detail.
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, 3 – 9, and 14 – 19 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 1 recites the limitations “the difference, "the start time", “the period”, and “the end” in lines 10, 11, and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 3 – 9 and 14 – 16 rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 17 recites the limitations “the difference, "the start time", “the period”, and “the end” in lines 10, 11, and 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitations “the difference, "the start time", “the period”, and “the end” in lines 7 and 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitations “the difference, "the start time", “the period”, and “the end” in lines 10 and 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 – 9, 14, and 18 – 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo (US 2019/0191120) in view of Ozone (US 2023/0370709).
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 (Figs. 2 and 24, The first and second pixel regions have both the first accumulation period and the second accumulation period). Ikedo fails to explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors set the first pixel region as an attention region based on a result of image recognition performed based on an image that has been read out from the sensor unit.
In a similar field of endeavor, Ozone teaches an imaging device where regions where the objects to be recognized are present are set as the ROIs and the resolutions at the time of reading are set for each of the ROIs (¶221). 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 focusing on areas of importance for the user.
Regarding claim 3, Ikedo in view of Ozone 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 in view of Ozone 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 in view of Ozone 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 6, Ikedo in view of Ozone discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ozone also teaches wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions perform image recognition based on a signal generated in at least the first accumulation period (¶79).
Regarding claim 7, Ikedo in view of Ozone discloses the limitations of claim 6. Ozone also teaches wherein the one or more processors further executing the instructions to perform the image recognition based on a signal generated in the second accumulation period (fig. 8, 11-13; ¶79).
Regarding claim 8, Ikedo in view of Ozone 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 in view of Ozone discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ikedo also teaches wherein the sensor unit includes an avalanche photodiode (¶28).
Regarding claim 14, Ikedo in view of Ozone discloses the limitations of claim 1. Ozone also teaches 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 (¶203-206).
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 in view of Ozone.
Claim(s) 15 – 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikedo in view of Ozone in view of Tsuchiya (US 2018/0316841).
Regarding claim 15, Ikedo in view of Ozone discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination 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 in view of Ozone discloses the limitations of claim 1. The combination 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; set the first pixel region as an attention region based on a result of image recognition performed based on an image that has been read out from the sensor unit; 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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
Prosecution Insights