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 .
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 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/08/2024 has been considered by the examiner. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “DNN (Deep Neural Network) processing unit”, " trigger unit” and “control unit”, “signal processing unit” in claims 1 - 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 – 15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “DNN (Deep Neural Network) processing unit”, " trigger unit” and “control unit”, “signal processing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There is inadequate written description for the terms “DNN (Deep Neural Network) processing unit”, " trigger unit” and “control unit”, “signal processing unit”.
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 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.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EKI (US PgPub No. 2021/0289151).
Regarding claim 1, EKI teaches an image capturing apparatus (figure 1 item 1) comprising: a DNN (Deep Neural Network) processing unit that performs a DNN process on image data generated by image capturing (figure 1 item 14, DSP runs DNN); a trigger unit that outputs a trigger signal for controlling stopping or driving of the DNN process (figure 4 item S206 the controller 12 changes the enable signal to INACTIVE, paragraph 0073); and a control unit that, on a basis of the trigger signal, controls stopping or driving for the DNN process and output to a subsequent stage (figure 1 item 12 controlling item 11 and 14; also figure 4 items S203 and S205).
Regarding claim 2, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein, in a case where the trigger signal indicates on, the control unit causes the DNN process to be operated and controls output of a result of the DNN process to the subsequent stage (figure 4 item S205 is “YES” and item S207 is “NO” item S205 repeated.
Regarding claim 3, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein, in a case where the trigger signal indicates off, the control unit causes the DNN process to be stopped and causes output, to the subsequent stage, of a pre-stop processing result that indicates a result of the DNN process obtained before the DNN process is stopped (figure 4 item S205 is “NO” and repeated).
Regarding claim 4, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 3, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the control unit causes the pre-stop processing result to be saved and, while the DNN process is stopped, causes output of the pre-stop processing result to be in synchronization with an output timing for the image data (figure 2A and 5 – 6 also figure 4 item S205 is “NO” and repeated).
Regarding claim 5, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein, in a case where the trigger signal indicates off, the control unit causes the DNN process to be stopped, and causes information pertaining to stopping of the DNN process to be outputted to the subsequent stage (figure 2A and 5 – 6 also figure 4 item S205 is “NO” and repeated).
Regarding claim 6, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 2, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the control unit causes a timing of output to the subsequent stage to be in synchronization with an output timing for the image data (figure 2A and 5 – 6; timing of output to the subsequent stage to be in synchronization with an output timing for the image data).
Regarding claim 7, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the control unit causes a frame rate for the image capturing to decrease when stopping the DNN process, and the control unit returns the frame rate for image capturing to an original value when the DNN process is operated again (figure 2A and 5 – 6; frame rate adjusted according to DNN).
Regarding claim 8, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the trigger unit outputs the trigger signal on a basis of a signal that indicates a characteristic of the image data (figure 4 items S204-S206; item S206 the controller 12 changes the enable signal to INACTIVE, paragraph 0073).
Regarding claim 9, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the signal that indicates the characteristic of the image data is a signal that indicates whether or not a luminance value of the image data continues to exceed a predetermined luminance value (paragraphs 0078; quantity of light equal to or larger than a preset threshold).
Regarding claim 10, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the signal that indicates the characteristic of the image data is a signal that indicates whether or not a feature amount of the image data is separated by a predetermined amount from a feature amount of an image used when the DNN process is trained (paragraph 0078; predetermined condition).
Regarding claim 11, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 8, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the signal that indicates the characteristic of the image data is a signal obtained from a signal processing unit that executes signal processing on the image data (paragraphs 0078; quantity of light equal to or larger than a preset threshold).
Regarding claim 12, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the trigger unit outputs the trigger signal on a basis of a signal that indicates a change in luminance of each pixel of an image sensor (paragraphs 0078; quantity of light equal to or larger than a preset threshold).
Regarding claim 13, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 12, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the signal that indicates the change in luminance of each pixel of the image sensor is a signal obtained from an external sensor (Figure 1 item 12/20 external to item 101 indicates change in luminance processing).
Regarding claim 14, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 13, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the trigger unit receives, asynchronously with respect to a timing of the image capturing, the signal obtained from the external sensor (figure 2A and 5 – 6; asynchronously with respect to a timing of the image capturing).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above in the discussion of claim 1, EKI teaches all of the limitations of the parent claim. Additionally, EKI teaches wherein the DNN process includes a process that uses a trained learning model to detect an object from the image data (paragraphs 0122, 0134 – 0136, and 0166).
Regarding claim 16, EKI teaches a signal processing method (figure 4) comprising: by an image capturing apparatus, performing a DNN (Deep Neural Network) process on image data generated by image capturing (figure 1 item 14, DSP runs DNN); outputting a trigger signal for controlling stopping or driving of the DNN process (figure 4 item S206 the controller 12 changes the enable signal to INACTIVE, paragraph 0073); and controlling, on a basis of the trigger signal, stopping or driving for the DNN process and output to a subsequent stage (figure 1 item 12 controlling item 11 and 14; also figure 4 items S203 and S205).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chakravarty (US patent No. 20200097724) teaches capturing and processing image via machine learning.
Okuike (US patent No. 20220224830) teaches capturing and processing image via machine learning.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Usman A Khan whose telephone number is (571)270-1131. The examiner can normally be reached on M - Th 5:30 AM - 2 PM, F 5:30 AM - Noon.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached on (571)272-7564. 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.
Usman Khan
/USMAN A KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
06/22/2026
Prosecution Insights