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 .
This action is in response to Application and Amended claims filed on 08/30/2024
Application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/090886 05/05/2022
Claims 1, 11 and 26 are independent
Claims 1-20 and 26-30 are pending
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4). Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 3-5, 13-15 and 29-30 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 enablement requirement. The claims recite “hardware abstraction layer” and therefore contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Besides the block diagram of Fig 2 where the HAL has been mentioned as 206 and in corresponding paragraph in the specification, a description is not provided that would enable one skilled in the art to make or use the invention.
Claims 17 and 29-30 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 enablement requirement. The claims recite “higher frequency” and therefore contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. In the instant disclosure, Applicant has used high frequency/high voltage and Examiner has therefore interpreted high frequency to also imply high voltage.
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 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.
Claims 11-5, 10 -15, 20 and 26-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0121288 A1) in view of Frascati et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0087198 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Wu discloses a computing device (Fig 1- head mounted computing device 110) comprising:
a bus (Fig 10 – low speed bus 1014 and in ¶0059, Wu discloses that each of the components 1002, 1004, 1006, 1008, 1010 and 1012 are interconnected using various buses. He also discloses that multiple processors and/or multiple buses may be used); and
a processor (Fig 10 – processor 1002; Fig 1 – HMCD processor 112, ULMCD processor 121, smartphone processor 131) configured to cause the computing device to:
receive, from an application running on the computing device, a camera close call (As disclosed in Fig 2A, when no AR-gestures is detected for a period (step 275) configuring camera of a head-mounted AR device in OFF-MODE – step 210);
receive, from the application, an indication of the context of the camera close call; and
based on the context of the camera close call, set an operation mode of at least one of the processor or the bus (In ¶0038 Wu discloses that images captured 250 by the camera may be analyzed 270 to identify gestures and/or objects and the head mounted AR device can be triggered by a trigger signal sent wirelessly from the ULMCD to the head mounted AR-device).
Wu discloses “close call” in Step 210 of Fig 2A. However, Examiner would like to use Frascati’s teachings teach based on the context of the camera close call, set an operation mode of at least one of the processor or the bus ( In Fig 12E, Frascati teaches that a camera close 33 is sent to existing camera interface 104 after which camera API 21 closes any custom pipelines and additional sessions).
Wu and Frascati are combinable because both are related to camera application programming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the close call as taught by Frascati in the imaging module disclosed by Wu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been so as to “have existing camera interface 104 call chi-teardown-override session and closes any custom pipelines” as disclosed by Frascati in ¶0216.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wu and Frascati to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11.
Regarding Claim 12, Wu in view of Wu in view of Frascati discloses wherein the camera close call is an application programming interface (API) call to an API of a framework running on the computing device (Wu: In ¶0027, Wu discloses that the head mounted computing device 110 includes a processor that when configured by software instructions stored in a computer readable memory 116 can carry out algorithms to analyze the captured images to detect and interpret items relative to user’s gesture to interact with portions of an AR environment. He also discloses interfaces that are included to display images to a user.).
Regarding Claim 13, Wu discloses using in ¶0021 Wu discloses about “deactivating” or placing the camera in “low-power state” (i.e. in an OFF mode) to not capture images so as to prevent the camera from consuming too much power. However, Wu fails to clearly disclose issue a camera close event to a hardware abstraction layer communicates with a camera driver configured to control a camera sensor of the computing device.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Frascati discloses hardware abstraction layer communicates with a camera driver configured to control a camera sensor of the computing device (Frascati teaches in ¶0030 that the API and driver of this disclosure may operate as extension of exiting camera interfaces, such as HAL interface. Also see ¶0047. Further in ¶0216 and in Fig 12E, Frascati teaches that when existing camera interface 104 receives the close call from the camera application).
Wu and Frascati are combinable because both are related to camera application programming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to issue a close event to a hardware abstraction layer as taught by Frascati in the imaging module disclosed by Wu.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “provide a consistent, high-level interface to the underlying hardware components, such as image sensors” as well known in the art
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wu and Frascati to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Wu in view of Frascati discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the computing device to: based on the camera close call, issue a callback to the application to determine the context of the camera close call, wherein the callback is issued by the hardware abstraction layer in response to the camera close event (Frascati: This is disclosed in ¶0079 where Frascati teaches that CHI node extension module 114 may be configured to implement a table of callback function pointers, which camera API 21 uses to call into the node).
Regarding Claim 15, Wu in view of Frascati discloses wherein the hardware abstraction layer registers a callback function to issue the callback when a camera close call is received (Frascati: This is disclosed in ¶0079 where Frascati teaches that module 114 may be configured as a C function pointer table-based interface. He also teaches that each node implementation may be compiled into a single file. This could be interpreted as “registering”).
Regarding Claim 20, Wu in view of Frascati discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the computing device to: after setting the operation mode, deallocate resources for a camera sensor of the computing device (Frascati: In ¶0216 and in Fig 12E, Frascati teaches the interface 104 that calls chi_teardown session that would deallocate the resources.).
Regarding Claim 1-5 and 10, these claims are methods claims that has limitation similar to claims 11-15 and 20. Claims 1-5 and 10 are therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 11-15 and 20.
Regarding Claim 26-30, these claims are program claims that has limitation similar to claims 11-15. Claims 26-30 are therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 11-15.
Claims 6-9 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2022/0121288 A1) in view of Frascati et al. (U. S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0087198 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above and further in view of Kuwabara (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2019/0356792 A1)
Regarding Claim 16, Wu in view of Frascati discloses wherein based on the context of the camera close call, to adjust the operation mode of the at least one of the processor or the bus comprises to: when the context indicates a close of a camera, set the operation mode to a first operation mode (Wu: in ¶0021 and throughout discloses that the wearable AR-device may have rigorous imaging and processing requirements that use substantial power. Therefore the camera can be deactivated or placed in a low-power state (OFF mode) to not capture images in order to prevent the camera from consuming too much power and provide privacy); and
However, Wu in view of Frascati fails to clearly disclose when the context indicates a mode switch of the camera, set the operation mode to a second operation mode.
Instead in a similar endeavor, Kuwabara discloses when the context (Here, operations initiated by the user is interpreted as “the context”. Examiner would like to state that “context” is not defined in the claim, and per Applicant’s disclosure in ¶0015 of the instant published Application, Applicant explains that “context” could be initiated by input from the user by operating a button; In ¶0074, Kuwabara teaches that the user directly switches the operation mode to any one of the modes described using the mode changeover switch 60) indicates a mode switch of the camera, set the operation mode to a second operation mode (Kuwabara teaches in ¶0074 that the mode changeover switch 60 switches an operation mode to any one of still image, recording mode, moving image, reproduction mode, connection mode and the like which could be interpreted as “a second mode”).
Wu, Frascati and Kuwabara are combinable because all are related to camera application programming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use user input to change mode as taught by Kuwabara in the imaging module disclosed by Wu in view of Frascati.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to “change the photographing” as is well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wu, Frascati and Kuwabara to obtain the invention as specified in claim 16.
Regarding Claim 17, Wu in view of Frascati and Kuwabara discloses wherein the second operation mode corresponds to operating the processor at a higher frequency than the first operation mode (Kuwabara: Since Kuwabara teaches the number of different mode in ¶0074 and since some of them are moving image /video photography, it is clear that some of the second operation mode corresponds to operating the processor at a higher frequency).
Regarding Claim 18, Wu in view of Frascati and Kuwabara discloses wherein the mode switch comprises at least one of: a change between a standard dynamic range mode and a high dynamic range mode, a change between capturing still images and capturing video, or a change between a first camera sensor and a second camera sensor (Kuwabara: Kuwabara teaches in ¶0074 that the mode changeover switch 60 switches an operation mode to any one of still image, recording mode, moving image, reproduction mode, connection mode and the like).
Regarding Claim 19, Wu in view of Frascati and Kuwabara discloses wherein the close of the camera comprises at least one of: input on a close button of the computing device or input on a home button of the computing device (Wu: In Fig 8 and in ¶0057, Wu discloses the use of interface switch 801).
Regarding Claim 6-9, these claims are methods claims that has limitation similar to claims 16-19. Claims 6-9 are therefore rejected on the same grounds as Claim 16-19.
Reference Cited
The following prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka (U.S. Patent Publication Number 2017/0315606 A1) discloses an information processing apparatus includes a first processor and a second processor. The first processor is operable to perform first processing and second processing in one of a plurality of operating states. The operating states includes a normal state and a power-saving state. The power-saving state is a state in which the first processor consumes less power than the normal state. The second processor is operable to perform the second processing while consuming less power than the first processor does. The second processor detects the first processing that the second processor is not able to perform. The second processor also causes the first processor to transition from the sleep state to the power-saving state to perform the first processing when the first processor is in a sleep state in which a power supply is stopped.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA HALIYUR whose telephone number is (571)272-3287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM - 4PM.
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.
/PADMA HALIYUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639 January 6, 2026