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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II, claims 11-20 in the reply filed on 6/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 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 14 and 19 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.
Claims 14 and 19 recite, “a virtual channel (VC)/data type (DT)”. It is unclear whether this term is in the alternative. In other words, it is not clear whether the term means a virtual channel and data type; or a virtual channel or data type.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 14, 16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keen et al (US Pat. 6,457,146; hereinafter referred to as Keen) in view of ITU-R BT.1364-3 (hereinafter referred to as ITU).
As per claim 11: Keen teaches a method for low latency error detection and recovery, the method comprising: reading an error status in response to a detected interrupt request (IRQ) (col. 5, lines 50-54).
Not explicitly disclosed is:
generating an error status packet in response to the error status;
monitoring a serial data stream transmitted to an image signal processor; and
transmitting the error status packet in a detected blanking interval of the serial data stream.
However, ITU in an analogous art teaches:
generating an error status packet (page 2, ancillary data packet);
monitoring a serial data stream (page 1, Scope) transmitted to an image signal processor (page 2, digital video component which necessarily comprises a processor); and
transmitting the error status packet in a detected blanking interval of the serial data stream (page 2: “A protocol is described which permits a number of different ancillary data packets to be carried within the space available in the digital blanking intervals of the digital component interface signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to employ the ancillary packet of ITU to communicate error status information due to interrupts as taught by Keen.
This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided a standardized format for transporting error data in a video stream.
As per claims 14, 19: Keen further teaches the method of claim 11 and apparatus of claim 16, in which generating the error status packet comprises setting a virtual channel (VC)/data type (DT) to a predetermined value to identify the error status packet (col. 4, lines 25-27 and 62-63).
As per claim 16:
Keen teaches an apparatus for low latency error detection and recovery, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory (Fig. 1, 17); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (Fig. 1, 16), the at least one processor configured to:
read an error status in response to a detected interrupt request (IRQ) (col. 5, lines 50-54).
Not explicitly disclosed is:
generating an error status packet in response to the error status;
monitoring a serial data stream transmitted to an image signal processor; and
transmitting the error status packet in a detected blanking interval of the serial data stream.
However, ITU in an analogous art teaches:
generating an error status packet (page 2, ancillary data packet);
monitoring a serial data stream (page 1, Scope) transmitted to an image signal processor (page 2, digital video component which necessarily comprises a processor); and
transmitting the error status packet in a detected blanking interval of the serial data stream (page 2: “A protocol is described which permits a number of different ancillary data packets to be carried within the space available in the digital blanking intervals of the digital component interface signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to employ the ancillary packet of ITU to communicate error status information due to interrupts as taught by Keen.
This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have provided a standardized format for transporting error data in a video stream.
Claim(s) 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keen in view of ITU in view of Yang (US Pat. Pub. 2024/0285156; hereinafter referred to as Yang).
As per claims 12, 17:
Keen et al teach the method of claim 11 and apparatus of claim 16 above. Not explicitly disclosed is generating the error status packet comprises generating a mobile industry processor interface (MIPI) packet including the error status. However, Yang in an analogous art teaches a digital video (Fig. 2, 11-12) MIPI compatible device (Fig. 2, 22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to employ the technique of Keen et al in the MIPI device of Yang. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the MIPI specification standard was well-known in the art, as shown by Yang.
As per claims 13, 18: Keen et al teach the method of claim 11 and apparatus of claim 16 above. Not explicitly disclosed is further comprising issuing the detected IRQ in response to an error detected in a serializer or a de-serializer coupled between the image signal processor and an image sensor. However, Yang in an analogous art teaches a serializer (Fig. 2, 13) and a de-serializer (Fig. 2, 21) coupled between the image signal processor (Fig. 2, 222) and an image sensor (Fig. 2, 11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to use the technique of Keen et al on the serializer of de-serializer of Yang. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because it would have allowed error processing and communication of error data in the circuit of Yang.
As per claims 15, 20:
ITU further teaches the method of claim 11 and apparatus of claim 16, in which transmitting the error status packet comprises: inserting the error status packet in the detected blanking interval (page 2: “A protocol is described which permits a number of different ancillary data packets to be carried within the space available in the digital blanking intervals of the digital component interface signal”).
Not explicitly disclosed is transmitting the error status packet downstream in the detected blanking interval of the serial data stream. However, Yang in an analogous art teaches a serial data stream that transmits data downstream (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to employ the technique of Keen et al on the serial MIPI device of Yang. This modification would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing because the MIPI specification standard was well-known in the art, as shown by Yang.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art are directed to interrupt error handling in data and video processing systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVE N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-7214. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Mark Featherstone can be reached at 571-270-3750. 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.
/STEVE N NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2111
Prosecution Insights