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 .
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, 4, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Endo et al. (US 20040201708 A1, hereinafter “Endo”).
Regarding claim 9, Endo teaches an apparatus comprising one or more processors (Figs. 1&3: computer PC with CPU 301 for performing the various processes) configured to:
generate combined sensor settings for a plurality of image sensors; and transmit the combined sensor settings in a single operation; wherein the one or more processors comprise a single software flow control for the plurality of image sensors (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 11, Endo teaches the apparatus of claim 9, 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 12, Endo teaches the apparatus of claim 11, in addition Endo discloses wherein each of the plurality of image sensors is controlled by a sensor driver according to the corresponding sensor settings 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.).
Regarding claims and 1, 3 and 4, Method claims 1, 3 and 4 are drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in respective claims 9, 11 and 12. Therefore, method claims 1, 3 and 4 correspond to apparatus in respective claims 9, 11 and 12 and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation as used above.
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 2 and 10 are 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 10, Endo teaches the apparatus of claim 9, 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]).
Regarding claim 2, Method claim 2 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 9. Therefore, method claim 2 corresponds to apparatus claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 5 and 13 are 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 13, Endo teaches the apparatus of claim 9, except wherein the one or more processors receive image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation.
However, Kindborg discloses wherein the one or more processors receive 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 wherein the one or more processors receive 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]).
Regarding claim 5, Method claim 5 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 13. Therefore, method claim 5 corresponds to apparatus claim 13 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 6, 8 and 14 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 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 ).
Regarding claim 14, Endo teaches the apparatus of claim 9, except wherein the one or more processors 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 one or more processors 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 6, Method claim 6 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 14. Therefore, method claim 6 corresponds to apparatus claim 14 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
Claims 7 and 15 are 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 15, Endo and Lin combination teaches the apparatus of claim 14, except wherein the single image buffer receives image data generated by the plurality of image sensors according to the combined sensor settings in a single operation.
However, Kindborg discloses wherein the single image buffer receives 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 wherein the single image buffer receives 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]).
Regarding claim 7, Method claim 7 is drawn to the method of using the corresponding apparatus claimed in claim 15. Therefore, method claim 7 corresponds to apparatus claim 15 and is rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as used above.
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