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 Arguments
Claim 9 was amended. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/22/2026, and in light of Applicant’s amendments to claim 9-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn.
However, Applicant's arguments in regard to claims 1-8 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically Applicant asserts
A. Endo does not disclose an ISP that generates the combined sensor settings and comprises the single software flow control.
Endo does not disclose an ISP. The Office action maps the claimed processor to
Endo's CPU 301. However, Endo's CPU 301 is merely the central processing unit of an25 ordinary general-purpose personal computer. Endo describes the PC as "an ordinary computer which has a basic configuration as shown in FIG. 3" (Endo, [0029]), comprising CPU 301, RAM 302, ROM 303, and external storage device 304, together with an operation unit 305 constituted by "a mouse, a keyboard, and other pointing devices" (Endo, [0033]) and a display unit 306 constituted by "a CRT or a liquid crystal display"30 (Endo, 034]). That is a general-purpose desktop computer, not an image signal processor.
An image signal processor is a specialized processor, distinct from a host CPU, dedicated to the image processing pipeline of a camera system, including sensor control and the processing of image data received from the image sensors. That is the processor described and claimed in the present application (see, e.g., FIG. 1, ISP 110; FIG. 3). Endo contains no disclosure of any such specialized image signal processor; its processing is performed by the CPU of a general-purpose PC executing program code stored in RAM/ROM (Endo, [0029]). The Office action identifies no ISP in Endo. Accordingly, Endo fails to disclose the ISP limitation common to independent claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 1
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants are reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of the claims. More specifically, Examiner BRI of Endo's CPU as the corresponding structure to the claimed feature “image signal processing” since Endo's CPU can implement the software program of the processing method (see [0073]-[0076]). Endo's CPU can serve as the functional equivalent of the claimed ISP when it performs the image processing steps (i.e. averaging step) that would normally be handled by dedicated ISP hardware. Therefore, both ISP and CPU can be functionally similar.
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Examiner respectfully stands behind the teachings of Endo's, as applied in the 35 U.S.C. rejection to independent claim 1 (see rejection, infra).
B. Endo does not disclose "combined sensor settings" as a single package
Amended claim 9 recites generating "combined sensor settings as a single package for a plurality of image sensors, wherein the combined sensor settings comprise respective sensor settings for the plurality of image sensors." This limitation makes explicit what the specification describes and what dependent claims 3 and 11 already require: the "combined sensor settings" is a single, unified data structure that contains the distinct, respective settings of each image sensor in the plurality.
As described with reference to FIG. 3, the single software flow control outputs
combined sensor settings that encapsulate the configuration data for the plurality of image sensors in a single package, which the sensor driver then disaggregates into individual sensor settings for each respective image sensor.
Endo discloses no such single package of respective per-sensor settings. Endo's
embodiment computes a single average from the settings of all cameras and applies that same average uniformly to every camera. Endo [0042] sets forth the averaging equations, yielding a single diaphragm value X and a single depth-of-field value Y, and paragraph [0046] confirms that "the calculated average is provided to all CCD cameras as new settings." Every camera receives the same averaged value.
Endo's single averaged value is fundamentally different from the claimed combined sensor settings. It is a single common scalar broadcast identically to all cameras, not a package containing distinct, respective settings for each sensor. It carries no per-sensor differentiation, and there is nothing for a driver to disaggregate into individual sensor settings, because every sensor is assigned the identical average. The Office action's reliance on Endo's statement that the average is provided to "each" camera (Endo, [0046]) conflates the destination of the transmission with the content of the data structure. That the average is "provided to each camera" describes where the value is sent; the claim limitation "comprise respective sensor settings for the plurality of image sensors" describes what the data structure contains. Endo's average is provided to each camera, but it does not comprise respective settings for each camera.
Accordingly, Endo fails to disclose the "combined sensor settings" limitation of10 independent claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 1
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants are reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of the claims. More specifically, Examiner considered Endo's averaging operation as one method of combination operation, because it takes multiple values and combines them into one output value. Therefore, Based on the foregoing analysis, the Examiner respectfully stands behind the teachings of Endo's, as applied in the 35 U.S.C. rejection to independent claim 1 (see rejection, infra).
C. Endo's "in sequence" transmission does not meet "transmit... in a single
operation"
Independent claims 1 and 9 each require transmitting the combined sensor settings "in a single operation." As clarified by the amendment, what is transmitted is a single package containing the respective settings of all of the image sensors, transmitted in one operation. The specification describes consolidating what would otherwise be N separate per-sensor transmissions into a single unified transmission.
Endo [0044] discloses the opposite: "an average determined by the PC is sent to the CCD cameras through the distributor in sequence to set up them again". The distributor "controls the switching to connect a CCD camera" one at a time (Endo, [0028]), and the cameras connect through RS-232C serial cables (Endo, [0028]), a point-to-point serial protocol. Endo therefore switches to a first camera and transmits, switches to a second camera and transmits, and so on, in sequence. That is, separate and sequential transmission operations, one per camera. This is precisely the repeated per-sensor transmission that the claimed "single operation" eliminates. Endo's express "in sequence" disclosure cannot meet the "single operation" limitation of claims 1 and 9.
For at least the foregoing reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1 and 9, as amended, are patentable over Endo. Claims 3, 4, 11, and 12, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1 and 9, are patentable at least by virtue of their dependency and for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 1
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants are reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the broadest reasonable interpretation of the language of the claims. More specifically, Examiner considered Endo's the step of outputting “the calculated average” to the “each CCD camera” as the claimed "a single operation.". Although the “average” is transmitted in sequence during a period of time, the operation does not require a new command. Instead, one command can start the output process, and that process can remain active for a designated period. Therefore, the “outputting” step refer to the overall commanded step rather than each individual transmission within the step. In this context, sending determined average is interpreted to be equivalent to claim 1 “single operation” because it resulted from one command that control the sequentially average transmission.
Therefore, Based on the foregoing analysis, the Examiner respectfully stands behind the teachings of Endo's, as applied in the 35 U.S.C. rejection to independent claim 1 (see rejection, infra).
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo et al. (US 20040201708 A1, hereinafter “Endo”).
Regarding claim 1, Endo teaches a method of operating an imaging apparatus (Figs. 1&3: computer PC with CPU 301 for performing the various processes), comprising: generating, by an image signal processor (ISP), combined sensor settings for a plurality of image sensors, the ISP comprising a single software flow control for the plurality of image sensors; and transmitting the combined sensor settings from the ISP in a single operation (Figs. 1-5, [0040]-[0046]: The operation performed by the PC is shown in FIG. 5 flow chart (claimed “single software flow control”). At step S501, the settings of each CCD camera are entered into the PC. At step S502, an average of the settings is calculated. At step S503, the calculated average is provided to all CCD cameras as new settings and is outputted to each CCD camera (Step S503 correspond to claimed “single operation”).).
Regarding claim 3, Endo teaches the method of claim 1, in addition Endo discloses wherein the combined sensor settings comprise sensor settings for each of the plurality of image sensors (Figs. 1-5, [0040]-[0046]: At step S503, the calculated average is provided to all CCD cameras as new settings and is outputted to each CCD camera.).
Regarding claim 4, Endo teaches the method of claim 3, in addition Endo discloses further comprising controlling each of the plurality of image sensors using a sensor driver according to the corresponding sensor setting within the combined sensor settings (Figs. 1-5, [0024]&[0044]: a distributor (claimed “sensor driver”) for controlling the switching among the plurality of CCD camera to send to and/or receive from the PC. an average determined by the PC is sent to the CCD cameras through the distributor in sequence to set up them again.).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 20040201708 A1, hereinafter “Endo”), in view of HE et al. (US 20180027167 A1, hereinafter “HE”).
Regarding claim 2, Endo teaches the method of claim 1, except wherein the plurality of image sensors have identical sensor latch timing, identical vertical synchronization (VSYNC) timing, or identical frame rate.
However, HE discloses wherein the plurality of image sensors have identical sensor latch timing, identical vertical synchronization (VSYNC) timing, or identical frame rate ([0070]: to synchronize the video recording in multiple user devices 110, sensor 210 in each user device 110 is desired to work with the same operation parameters, such that the frames generated by the multiple user devices 110 may be combined. Thus, controller 230 may prescribe a uniform frame rate for sensor 210. For example, if 1080p/30 fps are the resolution and frame rate used for sensor 210 in the synchronized imaging mode, controller 230 may set 1080p/30 fps for sensor 210.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the plurality of image sensors have identical sensor latch timing, identical vertical synchronization (VSYNC) timing, or identical frame rate as taught by HE into Endo processing. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to allow the frames generated by the multiple user devices 110 may be combined (HE: [0070]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 20040201708 A1, hereinafter “Endo”), in view of Kindborg et al. (US 20080122949 A1, hereinafter “Kindborg”).
Regarding claim 5, Endo teaches the method of claim 1, except further comprising receiving, by the ISP, image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation.
However, Kindborg discloses receiving, by the ISP, image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation (Fig. 11, [0139]-[0147]: In a fourth step 1106, a parameter value change request from the apparatus 104 is received by the camera 100. In a fifth step 1108, the parameter values are changed based upon the parameter value change request. In a sixth step 1110, new image data based on the changed parameter values is generated by the camera 100. Finally, in a seventh step 1112, the new image data is transmitted to the apparatus 104 through the data communications network 102.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate receiving, by the ISP, image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation as taught by Kindborg into Endo processing. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to provide a method for configuring parameter values for a plurality of cameras, wherein an image feedback is provided after a reconfiguration of the parameter values. (Kindborg: [0007]).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo et al. (US 20040201708 A1, hereinafter “Endo”), in view of Lin et al. (US 11101820 B1, hereinafter “Lin”).
Regarding claim 6, Endo teaches the method of claim 1, except wherein the TSP comprise a single image buffer having continuous physical addresses.
However, Lin discloses wherein the one or more processors comprise a single image buffer having continuous physical addresses (Fig. 6, Col. 10 Lines 16-48: a host system 11 is coupled to a memory storage device 10, configured to temporarily store the data, through a data transmission interface 114. The memory storage device 10 includes a buffer memory 510 consisting of a plurality of continuous or non-continuous physical addresses).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the TSP comprise a single image buffer having continuous physical addresses as taught by Lin into Endo processing. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to improve a decoding success rate of data in a hard bit mode decoding (Lin: Parag. 1 of Summary ).
Regarding claim 8, Endo teaches the method of claim 1, except wherein a mapping table for mapping physical addresses of an image buffer associated with each of the plurality of image sensors to a single data structure is stored in the ISP.
However, Lin discloses wherein a mapping table for mapping physical addresses of an image buffer associated with each of the plurality of image sensors to a single data structure is stored in the ISP (Fig. 6, Col. 10 Lines 49-59: The memory management circuit 502 may record a mapping relation (also known as a logical-to-physical address mapping relation) between the logical unit and the physical unit in at least one logical-to-physical address mapping table).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein a mapping table for mapping physical addresses of an image buffer associated with each of the plurality of image sensors to a single data structure is stored in the ISP as taught by Lin into Endo processing. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to improve a decoding success rate of data in a hard bit mode decoding (Lin: Parag. 1 of Summary ).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Endo and Lin combination as applied above, in view of Kindborg et al. (US 20080122949 A1, hereinafter “Kindborg”).
Regarding claim 7, Endo and Lin combination teaches the method of claim 6, except further comprising receiving, by the single image buffer, image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation.
However, Kindborg discloses further comprising receiving, by the single image buffer, image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation (Fig. 11, [0139]-[0147]: In a fourth step 1106, a parameter value change request from the apparatus 104 is received by the camera 100. In a fifth step 1108, the parameter values are changed based upon the parameter value change request. In a sixth step 1110, new image data based on the changed parameter values is generated by the camera 100. Finally, in a seventh step 1112, the new image data is transmitted to the apparatus 104 through the data communications network 102.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate further comprising receiving, by the single image buffer, image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation as taught by Kindborg into Endo and Lin combination. The suggestion/ motivation for doing so would be to provide a method for configuring parameter values for a plurality of cameras, wherein an image feedback is provided after a reconfiguration of the parameter values (Kindborg: [0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-15 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious generate combined sensor settings as a single package for a plurality of image sensors, wherein the combined sensor settings comprise respective sensor settings for the plurality of image sensors; and transmit the combined sensor settings in a single operation; wherein the one or more processors comprise ISP comprises a single software flow control for the plurality of image sensors, in combination with all the limitations recited on claim 9.
Regarding claims 10-15, are allowable because they are dependent on claim 9.
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 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 ABDELAAZIZ TISSIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-7204. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8 AM to 5 PM.
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, Ye Lin can be reached on 571-272-7372. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 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.
/ABDELAAZIZ TISSIRE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights