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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosures of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 61/932,852, 14/319,285, 15/091,733, 15/811,033, 16/372,678, 17/834,190, 18/339,001, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, provisional application 61/932,852 fails to provide support for a first core performing a first encoding task in a first encoding stage with respect to the plurality of images and a second core configured to perform a second encoding task in a second encoding stage with respect to the first plurality of images encoded in the first encoding stage. Specifically, the provisional application does not disclose any stages.
Regarding claims 22-39, they depend from claim 21 and therefore are not supported by the provisional application for the same reasons as stated above (see claims 21 and 40.
Regarding claim 24, there is no support in the prior-filed applications for a third core performing a third encoding task in a third encoding stage with respect to images encoded in the third encoding stage. While paragraph [0057] of the PG-PUB of the instant application states that a third and fourth stage may be provided, there is nothing to suggest that the third stage is performing a third encoding task on images encoded in the same third stage. Rather, paragraph [0057] at best discloses that the third stage would perform a third encoding task on images encoded in a second stage preceding the third stage.
Regarding claims 25-27, they depend from claim 24 and therefore are also not supported by the prior-filed applications.
Regarding claim 28, there is no support in the prior-filed applications for the first core performing a first encoding task and a second encoding task in the same embodiment where the second core performs the second task on images encoded with the first encoding task. Specifically, claim 28 seems to be combining the fig. 6 and fig. 7 embodiments. There is nothing in the specification that suggests combining these two embodiments.
When describing the fig. 6 embodiment, paragraph [0055] of the PG-PUB of the instant application states “Fig. 6 illustrates an example embodiment in which multiple processors perform multi-stage encoding tasks for one or more array imagers.” When describing the fig. 7 embodiment, paragraph [0058] states “Fig. 7 illustrates another example embodiment in which multiple processors perform multi-stage encoding tasks for one or more array imagers.” The use of the phrases “an example embodiment” and “another example embodiment” clearly indicate that these are two separate embodiments.
Claim 21 from which 28 depends states that the second core performs a second encoding task in a second encoding stage with respect to images encoded in the first encoding stage. Only the fig. 6 embodiment reads on limitations described in claim 21. Specifically, in fig. 7 one core is performing the first and second encoding task, whereas in claim 21, one core is performing one encoding task and another core is performing another encoding task. Therefore, when claim 28, which depends from claim 21, introduces elements from the fig. 7, a new undisclosed embodiment has been created which combines both fig. 6 and fig. 7.
See also 112(a) rejection below with respect to claim 28.
Regarding claims 29-37, they depend from claim 28 and therefore are not supported in the prior-filed applications for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 28).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the third core performing a third encoding task in a third encoding stage with respect to images encoded in the third encoding stage (claim 24) and the arrangement described in claim 28 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-23, 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,234 B2.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teach all the limitations of instant claims 21 and 40.
Regarding claim 22, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 23.
Regarding claim 38, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 38.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 10,264,234 B2 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0132735 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 39, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), however, claims 1 and 5 of ‘234, fail to explicitly disclose the electronic device is a smart phone. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the electronic device (200; fig. 7) is a smartphone (figs. 7-8; [0074]).
Claims 1 and 5 of ‘234 teaches an electronic device having an array imager. Lee teaches an electronic device having an array imager wherein the electronic device is a smartphone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed electronic device with a smartphone to achieve the predictable result of providing a camera on a device that is often on a user’s person.
Claims 21-23, 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,448 B2.
Regarding claims 21 and 40, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teach all the limitations of instant claims 21 and 40.
Regarding claim 22, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 23.
Regarding claim 38, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teaches all the limitations of instant claim 38.
Claim 39 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 9,832,448 B2 in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0132735 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee.
Regarding claim 39, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 disclose everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), however, claims 1 and 5 of ‘448, fail to explicitly disclose the electronic device is a smart phone. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Lee.
In a similar field of endeavor, Lee discloses wherein the electronic device (200; fig. 7) is a smartphone (figs. 7-8; [0074]).
Claims 1 and 5 of ‘448 teaches an electronic device having an array imager. Lee teaches an electronic device having an array imager wherein the electronic device is a smartphone. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed electronic device with a smartphone to achieve the predictable result of providing a camera on a device that is often on a user’s person.
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 24-37 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 24, it recites that a third core performs a third encoding task in a third encoding stage with respect to the first plurality of images encoded in the third encoding stage. There is no support for this limitation in the specification as originally filed. Specifically, there is no mention in the specification of a third core performing a third encoding task in a third encoding stage on images that have already been encoded in the third encoding stage.
Regarding claims 25-27, they depend from claim 24 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 24).
Regarding claim 28, it recites that the second core performs a first encoding task in the first encoding stage with respect to a second subset of the first plurality of images and performs the second encoding task in the second encoding stage with respect to the first subset of the first plurality of images encoded in the first encoding stage. There is not sufficient written description to inform a skilled artisan that the inventor was in possession of this claimed feature at the time the application was filed. Specifically, claim 28 describes an arrangement that has no basis in the drawings. Claim 28 seems to be some combination of figs. 6 and 7 with additional elements added in. A drawing of claim 28 is shown below.
[AltContent: connector]
As can be seen by comparing figs. 6 and 7 with the drawing above, it is clear figs. 6 and 7 would not inform a skilled artisan that the inventor was in possession of the above drawing. It should also be noted that fig. 6 and fig. 7 are two different embodiments that are never disclosed to be combined in any way (see paragraphs [0055] and [0058] of the PG-PUB of the instant application).
The paragraphs describing figs. 6 and 7 (paragraphs [0055]-[0059] of PG-PUB of instant application) are also not sufficiently detailed to provide evidence that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention.
In addition, the limitations of claim 28 are also new matter as there is no support in the specification as originally filed for the features of claim 28 as explained above.
Regarding claims 29-37, they depend from claim 28 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 28).
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 24-27 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 24, it recites the limitation "the first plurality of images encoded in the third encoding stage". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the third encoding stage is introduced in this claim itself. Therefore, it is unclear what “the first plurality of images encoded in the third encoding stage” is referring to. It is also unclear how the third core can perform a third encoding task on images that have already been encoded with the third encoding task. It seems that the claim should state “the first plurality of images encoded in the second encoding stage”.
Regarding claims 25-27, they depend from claim 24 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 24).
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.
Claim(s) 21, 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2014/0132735 A1) hereinafter referenced as Lee in view of Bordes et al. (US 2008/0198926 A1) hereinafter referenced as Bordes further in view of Official Notice.
Regarding 21, Lee discloses
An electronic device (200; fig. 7), comprising:
at least one non-transitory computer-readable media (260; [0109], [0110]) to store instructions;
a first array imager (221b; fig. 8) including a first image sensor (123; fig. 3) configured to capture a first plurality of images; and
one or more processors (181, 182, 183, 184; fig. 3).
However, Lee, fails to explicitly disclose the first encoding stage and second encoding stage. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Bordes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bordes discloses a first [encoder] (2; fig. 1) configured to perform a first encoding task in a first encoding stage with respect to the first plurality of images, and
a second [encoder] (7; fig. 1) configured to perform a second encoding task in a second encoding stage with respect to the first plurality of images encoded in the first encoding stage.
Lee teaches a mobile device having an array camera capable of capturing images. Bordes teaches using two encoders in series to perform to encoding tasks on image images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Lee by applying the technique of providing two encoders in series performing two different encoding tasks on the captured images captured by the image sensor sequentially to achieve the predictable result of encoding the captured images in a way that is flexible as disclosed in Bordes ([0007]).
However, Lee and Bordes, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose that the first encoding task is performed by a first core and the second encoding task is performed by a second core. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
The combination teaches capturing images using an array imager and encoding those images with first encoding task in a first stage and a second encoding task in a second stage. Using different processors to perform different computational tasks is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the undisclosed structure of the two encoders in Bordes with two processors to achieve the predictable result of reducing the amount of stress on the individual processors.
Regarding claim 38, Lee, Bordes, and Official Notice, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, Lee discloses, wherein
the first array imager (121; fig. 3) wherein the first array imager includes a second image sensor (123; fig. 3) configured to capture a second plurality of images at substantially a same time as the first plurality of images are captured by the first image sensor, the first plurality of images and the second plurality of images depicting substantially a same scene ([0029]).
However, Lee, fails to explicitly disclose the first encoding task and the second encoding task. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Bordes.
In a similar field of endeavor, Bordes discloses a first [encoder] (2; fig. 1) configured to perform a first encoding task in a first encoding stage with respect to the second plurality of images, and
a second [encoder] (7; fig. 1) configured to perform a second encoding task in a second encoding stage with respect to the second plurality of images encoded in the first encoding stage.
Lee teaches a mobile device having an array camera capable of capturing images. Bordes teaches using two encoders in series to perform to encoding tasks on image images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Lee by applying the technique of providing two encoders in series performing two different encoding tasks on the captured images captured by each image sensor sequentially to achieve the predictable result of encoding the captured images in a way that is flexible as disclosed in Bordes ([0007]).
However, Lee and Bordes, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose that the first encoding task is performed by a first core and the second encoding task is performed by a second core. However, the examiner takes official notice of the fact that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to provide this.
The combination teaches capturing images using an array imager and encoding those images with first encoding task in a first stage and a second encoding task in a second stage. Using different processors to perform different computational tasks is well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to substitute the undisclosed structure of the two encoders in Bordes with two processors to achieve the predictable result of reducing the amount of stress on the individual processors.
Regarding claim 39, Lee, Bordes, and Official Notice, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 21), in addition, Lee discloses, wherein the electronic device (200; fig. 7) is a smartphone (figs. 7-8; [0074]).
Regarding claim 40, it recites similar limitations to claim 21 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 21).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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 at (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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 4/3/2026
Prosecution Insights