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 .
DETAILED ACTION
RESPONSE TO ARGUMENTS
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 6/29/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn. However, based upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is entered in view of HE et al (US Pub. No: 2021-0352263) and in light of Applicant’s newly amended claims.
Examiner acknowledges Claims 6-9 and 16-20 have been canceled.
Examiner acknowledges Claims 21-29 have been added.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks on Pages 7-9, Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 6/29/26 have been fully considered and the rejections withdrawn. However, based upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is entered in view of HE et al (US Pub. No: 2021-0352263) and in light of Applicant’s newly amended claims (See rejection contained herein). Examiner respectfully submits amended Claims 1 & 15 (and newly added Claim 25) were not incorporated entirely with all of the previously allowed subject matter limitations. To avoid an RCE, Examiner will accept an After Final amendment to cure the 35 U.S.C section 112(b), to include entirely all the previously allowed subject matter and without claim scope change. Applicant is encouraged to telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to place the application in a most favorable light for allowance. Accordingly, the rejections stand for the independent as well as dependent claims.
FINAL REJECTION
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 pointingout and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as theinvention.
Claims 1, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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.
Claims 1 and 25 recite ‘receiving an indication about luminance information, associated with the image data, that is based on a computational model configured to estimate a distance of an artifact in an image to a sensor’ whereby it is unclear by the amended limitation structure which is ‘based upon a computational model’, the luminance information or the image data. Appropriate correction is required as the original allowable limitations of Claims 6-7 where not incorporated in entirety. In addition, it is recommended Applicant clarify if ‘artifact in an image’ should recite ‘artifact in the image’.
Examiner note: Examiner will accept an After Final amendment to cure the 35 U.S.C section 112(b) and to include entirely all the previously allowed subject matter. Applicant is encouraged to telephone Examiner Adams (571-270-3688) prior to filing a response to place the application in a most favorable light for allowance.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) in view of HE et al (US Pub. No: 2021-0352263)
As per Claim 1 LUO discloses A method comprising (Figs. 1-4 [Abstract]):
receiving, by a computing device, image data indicative of one or more images captured by at least one sensor at a first premises (Figs. 1-4 [Abstract] image sensor 110 captures images of a scene [0022] DEMUX 124 coupled to the sensor 110 receives the sensed data to fusion circuit 125 [0043-0044]); receiving an indication about luminance information associated with the image data (Figs. 1-4 luminance data received by calculation circuit 123 associated with captured image (s) [0030, 0032] [0034-0036] [0038-0040]), that is based on a computational model (Figs. 1-4 luminance sequence max/min threshold data [0023]); determining, based at least on the luminance information, that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied (Figs. 1-4 sensor modes linear vs HDR for luminance threshold criteria [0034-0036] sensors mode determinations [0038-0040]); and based on the determining that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied, causing transmission, to the at least one sensor, of a control signal that is configured to control one or more settings of the at least one sensor (Figs. 1-4 control circuit 120 controls image sensor 110 when results from determining luminance data - first luminance threshold comparisons and control image sensor for the modes [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044])
LUO does not disclose but HE discloses configured to estimate a distance of an artifact in an image to a sensor (Figs. 1-2, 12-14 object artifact [0037]);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include configured to estimate a distance of an artifact in an image to a sensor as taught by HE into the system of LUO and HE because of the benefit taught by HE to include advanced three-dimensional images sensing based upon luminance information which extends and expands the features of LOU which is directed as well towards image capture under varying luminance control.
As per Claim 25 LUO discloses A method comprising (See said analysis for Claim 1): receiving, by a computing device, image data indicative of one or more images captured by at least one sensor at a first premises (See said analysis for Claim 1); receiving an indication about luminance information, associated with the image data, that is based on a computational model (See said analysis for Claim 1); determining, based at least on the luminance information, that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied (See said analysis for Claim 1); and based on the determining that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied, causing transmission, to the at least one sensor, of a control signal that is configured to control one or more settings of the at least one sensor (See said analysis for Claim 1)
LUO does not disclose but HE discloses configured to estimate a distance from a feature in an image to a sensor (Figs. 1-2, 12-14 object feature ooi [0037]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 1 applies equally to Claim 25)
As per Claim 26 LUO discloses The method of claim 25, wherein satisfaction of the sensor mode threshold (Figs. 1-4 sensor modes linear vs HDR for luminance threshold criteria [0034-0036] sensors mode determinations [0038-0040]) is indicative of insufficient luminance (Figs. 1-4 image sensor modes active based upon a different mode threshold not satisfied to retain/active current/previous mode [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044]).
Claims 10-11, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) in view of HE et al (US Pub. No: 2021-0352263), as applied in Claims 1, 25-26, and further in view of LU et al. (Pub. No: US 2024-0056565).
As per Claim 10 LUO discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the control signal is configured to cause the at least one sensor to activate (Figs. 1-4 control circuit 120 controls image sensor 110 when results from determining luminance data - first luminance threshold comparisons and control image sensor for the modes [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044]).
LUO and HE do not disclose but LU discloses activate an infrared configuration ([0090])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include activate an infrared configuration as taught by LU into the system of LUO and HE because of the benefit taught by LU to include analysis for infrared light as a potential of inclusion of light sources with regards to image analysis which would expand upon system capabilities of said systems.
As per Claim 11 LUO discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the control signal is configured to cause the at least one sensor to activate (Figs. 1-4 image sensor modes active based upon a different mode threshold not satisfied to retain/active current/previous mode [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044]).
LUO and HE do not disclose but LU discloses activate an infrared configuration (See said analysis for Claim 10)
As per Claim 27 LUO discloses The method of claim 25, wherein the control signal is configured to cause the at least one sensor to activate (Figs. 1-4 image sensor modes active based upon a different mode threshold not satisfied to retain/active current/previous mode [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044])
LUO and HE do not disclose but LU discloses activate an infrared configuration (See said analysis for Claim 10)
Claim 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) in view of HE et al (US Pub. No: 2021-0352263), as applied in Claims 1, 25-26, and further in view of GUEHRING et al. (Pub. No: US 2011-0110572)
As per Claim 12 LUO discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising
LUO and HE do not disclose but GUEHRING discloses determining a foreign entity is present in the image data (Fig. 6 determine artifacts present by image analysis [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include determining a foreign entity is present in the image data as taught by GUEHRING into the system of LUO and HE because of the benefit taught by GUEHRING to include detection of artifacts as artifacts may unwantedly reflect/block light and would therefore improve lighting/luminance analysis systems by taking into account additional analysis factors that could affect accuracy outcomes
Claims 14, 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) in view of HE et al (US Pub. No: 2021-0352263), as applied in Claims 1, 25-26, and further in view of MIYAGI et al. (Pub. No: US 2017-0186022).
As per Claim 14 LUO discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the control signal causes the at least one sensor to (See said analysis for Claim 1)
LUO and HE do not disclose but MIYAGI discloses oscillate between an infrared configuration and a non-infrared configuration at regular intervals of time (Figs. 1-2 camera 20 [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include oscillate between an infrared configuration and a non-infrared configuration at regular intervals of time as taught by MIYAGI into the system of LUO and HE because of the benefit taught by MIYAGI to include switchable light sources with the potential inclusion of infrared light analysis with regards to image analysis which would expand upon system capabilities of said systems.
As per Claim 28 LUO discloses The method of claim 25, wherein the control signal causes the at least one sensor to (See said analysis for Claim 25)
LUO and HE do not disclose but MIYAGI discloses oscillate between an infrared configuration and a non-infrared configuration at regular intervals of time (See said analysis for Claim 14)
Claims 15, 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) in view of CHOPRA et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0188991).
As per Claim 15 LUO discloses A method comprising (See said analysis for Claim 1):
determining, based at least on image data associated with at least one sensor, one or more first light sources (Figs. 1-4 luminance data received light source [0030, 0032] [0034-0036] [0038-0040]) determining luminance information comprising one or more of an estimated distance from one or more first light sources to the sensor (either or) or an estimated brightness associated with one or more first light sources (Figs. 1-4 luminance data received & estimated by circuit 123 associated with captured image [0030, 0032] [0034-0036] [0038-0040]); determining, based on the luminance information, whether that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied (Figs. 1-4 sensor modes linear vs HDR for luminance threshold criteria [0034-0036] sensors mode determinations [0038-0040]); and based on the determining that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied, causing transmission, to the at least one sensor, of a control signal that is configured to control one or more settings of the at least one sensor (Figs. 1-4 control circuit 120 controls image sensor 110 when results from determining luminance data - first luminance threshold comparisons and control image sensor for the modes [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044])
LUO does not disclose but CHOPRA discloses and one or more second light sources of one or more light sources represented by the image data (Figs. 2-5, 7-8 primary light source within the image as well as remaining sources [0068, 0077] [0153-0156])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include and one or more second light sources of one or more light sources represented by the image data as taught by CHOPRA into the system of LUO because of the benefit taught by CHOPRA to include exclusion of unwanted light sourced image data whereby LUO would benefit from the ability to strip out unwanted light sources to improve upon accuracy of luminance analysis.
As per Claim 21 LUO discloses The method of claim 15, wherein
LUO does not disclose but CHOPRA discloses the luminance information is determined based on excluding the one or more second light sources (Figs. 2-5, 7-8 remove/exclude the artifact unwanted light source within the image to leave remaining sources [0068, 0077] incoming light for corrections of ROI needed [0153-0156]) (The motivation that applied in Claim 15 applies equally to Claim 21).
As per Claim 22 LUO discloses The method of claim 15, wherein satisfaction of the sensor mode threshold is indicative of insufficient luminance (Figs. 1-4 image sensor modes active based upon a different mode threshold not satisfied to retain/active current/previous mode [0006-0007] [0038-0040] [0043-0044]).
Claim 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) in view of CHOPRA et al. (Pub. No: US 2022-0188991), as applied in Claims 15, 21-22, and further in view of LU (Pub. No: US 2024-0056565)
As per Claim 23 LUO discloses The method of claim 15, wherein the control signal is configured to cause the at least one sensor to activate (See said analysis for Claim 10)
LUO and CHOPRA do not disclose but LU discloses activate an infrared configuration ([0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include activate an infrared configuration as taught by LU into the system of LUO and CHOPRA because of the benefit taught by LU to include analysis for infrared light as a potential of inclusion of light sources with regards to image analysis which would expand upon system capabilities of said systems.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 13, 24, 29 is/are objected to as being dependent upon the rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and but for the outstanding rejections.
Claims 2-5, 13, 24, 29 is/are allowed, but for the outstanding rejections under 35 U.S.C. section 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
As per Claim 2 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied further comprises: providing to a model a first dataset, wherein the first dataset comprises a plurality of images of the first premises in which a first artifact is visible, and wherein the first dataset comprises an indication of sufficient luminance; and providing to the model a second dataset, wherein the second dataset comprises a plurality of images of the first premises in which the first artifact is not visible, and wherein the second dataset comprises an indication of insufficient luminance" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 3 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 2, wherein the model indicates whether the sensor mode threshold has been satisfied based at least in part on visibility of the first artifact in the image data" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 4 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 1, wherein the determining that a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied further comprises: providing to a model a first dataset, wherein the first dataset comprises a plurality of images satisfying a luminance threshold, and wherein the first dataset comprises an indication of sufficient luminance; and providing to the model a second dataset, wherein the second dataset comprises a plurality of images below the luminance threshold, and wherein the second dataset comprises an indication of insufficient luminance" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 5 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 4, wherein the satisfied sensor mode threshold is indicative of insufficient luminance, and wherein the determining that the sensor mode threshold has been satisfied is further based at least in part on the image data" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 13 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 12, wherein the control signal is configured to oscillate between an infrared configuration and a normal configuration based on the determining a foreign entity is present in the image data" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 24 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 15, wherein the control signal causes the at least one sensor to oscillate between an infrared configuration and a non-infrared configuration at regular intervals of time " These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
As per Claim 29 the prior art of record either alone or in reasonable combination fails to teach or suggest “The method of claim 25, further comprising determining a foreign entity is present in the image data, wherein the control signal is configured to oscillate between an infrared configuration and a normal configuration based on the determining a foreign entity is present in the image data" These limitations in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim are thus deemed allowable.
The closest prior art of record LUO et al. (Pub. No: US 2023-0077497) for Claims 2-5, 13, 24, 29 does not teach all the elements in combination with the other limitations of the independent claim. LUO only discloses receiving, by a computing device, image data indicative of one or more images captured by at least one sensor at a first premises. The prior art further discloses receiving an indication about luminance information associated with the image data, determining, based at least on the luminance information, whether a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied, and causing transmission of a control signal to the at least one sensor based on the determining whether a sensor mode threshold has been satisfied.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Eileen Adams whose telephone number is (571) 270-3688. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs from 7:30-5:00. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571) 272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-4688.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EILEEN M ADAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights