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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silsby et al. (US Pub. 2009/0002501), in view of Jelinek (US Pub. 2011/0187880).
In regard to claim 1, note Silsby discloses an electronic device, comprising a lens configured to convey and focus input electromagnetic waves (paragraph 0055, and figure 4: 120), a first image sensor configured to receive the input electromagnetic waves (paragraphs 0019-0020, 0056, 0058, figure 1: 14, and figure 4: 140), and a second image sensor configured to receive the input electromagnetic waves (paragraphs 0015, 0056, 0058, figure 1: 12, and figure 4: 130), wherein the first image sensor has a lower resolution than the second image sensor, the first image sensor has a higher sampling rate than the second image sensor (paragraphs 0015, 0019-0020, 0056, 0058, figure 1: 12, 14, and figure 4: 130, 140; the first image sensor 14/140 is low resolution and high frame rate, and the second image sensor 14/130 is high resolution and low frame rate), and the first image sensor is configured to detect motion of one or more first objects (paragraphs 0020, 0023; the images from the first image sensor 14/140 ae used to detect motion).
Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose an optical component, optically coupled to the lens, configured to divide the input electromagnetic waves into a first subset of the input electromagnetic waves and a second subset of the input electromagnetic waves, that the first image sensor is optically coupled to the optical component to receive the first subset of the input electromagnetic waves, and that the second image sensor is optically coupled to the optical component to receive the second subset of the input electromagnetic waves.
In analogous art, Jelinek discloses an electronic device having a first and second image sensor (figure 2), which includes an optical component, optically coupled to the lens, configured to divide the input electromagnetic waves into a first subset of the input electromagnetic waves and a second subset of the input electromagnetic waves, and wherein the first image sensor is optically coupled to the optical component to receive the first subset of the input electromagnetic waves, and the second image sensor is optically coupled to the optical component to receive the second subset of the input electromagnetic waves (paragraphs 0026-0027, and figure 2: 26, 12, 13; the optical component 26 divides the input light into two optical paths toward respective first and second image sensors). The Examiner notes that the use of a shared optical path is well known in the art for purposes of providing accurate alignment between multiple image sensors, thereby reducing the need for image processing for alignment/registration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference to include an optical component, optically coupled to the lens, configured to divide the input electromagnetic waves into a first subset of the input electromagnetic waves and a second subset of the input electromagnetic waves, and wherein the first image sensor is optically coupled to the optical component to receive the first subset of the input electromagnetic waves, and the second image sensor is optically coupled to the optical component to receive the second subset of the input electromagnetic waves, in order to provide accurate alignment between multiple image sensors, and thereby reduce the need for image processing for alignment/registration, as is known in the art.
In regard to claim 2, note Jelinek discloses that the optical component comprises: a beam splitter, one or more light pipes, or one or more optical fibers (paragraphs 0026-0027, and figure 2: 26).
In regard to claim 3, note Silsby discloses that the first image sensor or the second image sensor comprise a charge coupled device (CCD) or a complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor (paragraph 0016).
In regard to claim 4, note Jelinek discloses that the first image sensor is configured to receive electromagnetic waves in a different band of frequencies than the second image sensor (paragraphs 0026-0027).
In regard to claim 6, note Silsby discloses that the outputs from the first image sensor and the second image sensor are synchronized (paragraphs 0018, 0020, figure 1: 12, 14, and figure 4: 130, 140; both sensors are synchronized to capture during sample period Ts).
In regard to claim 7, note Silsby discloses that the first subset of the input electromagnetic waves and the second subset of the input electromagnetic waves have a common field of view (paragraphs , and figure 4: ). Jelinek also discloses that the first subset of the input electromagnetic waves and the second subset of the input electromagnetic waves have a common field of view
In regard to claim 8, note Silsby discloses that the sampling rate of the first image sensor is greater than or equal to 1,000 Hz (paragraphs 0020, figure 1: 14, and figure 4: 140).
In regard to claim 9, note Silsby discloses that the resolution of the first image sensor is less than or equal to 200×150 (paragraphs 0019, figure 1: 14, and figure 4: 140).
In regard to claim 16, note Jelinek discloses that the one or more first objects in an output of the first image sensor are guaranteed to match corresponding one or more second objects in an output of the second image sensor (paragraphs 0026, 0029, and figure 2: 23, 25; since both sensor share the same optical path 23 through lens 25, that is split for each of the sensors, object positions are considered to match on both sensors).
In regard to claim 19, this is a method claim, corresponding to the apparatus in claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 20.
In regard to claim 20, this is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that controls the corresponding operation of the electronic device of claim 1. Therefore, claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect claim 1. Additionally, the Examiner notes that Silsby discloses the use of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that controls the operation of the electronic device (paragraph 0078).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silsby et al. (US Pub. 2009/0002501), in view of Jelinek (US Pub. 2011/0187880), and further in view Sonnleitner (US Patent 10,247,699).
In regard to claim 5, note Silsby discloses that the first image sensor comprises a CMOS or CCD image sensor (paragraph 0016). Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the first image sensor comprises photodiodes, photoresistors, or phototransistors.
In analogous art, Sonnleitner discloses an image sensor comprised of photodiodes, photoresistors, or phototransistors (column 5, lines 1-10). Sonnleitner teaches that the use of an image sensor comprised of photodiodes, photoresistors, or phototransistors is preferred in order to have a very compact construction and thus offer high resolution (column 5, lines 1-10). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the image sensor is comprised of photodiodes, photoresistors, or phototransistors is preferred in order to have a very compact construction and thus offer high resolution, as suggested by Sonnleitner.
Claims 10-15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silsby et al. (US Pub. 2009/0002501), in view of Jelinek (US Pub. 2011/0187880), and further in view Ornes et al. (US Patent 12,542,877).
In regard to claim 10, note Silsby discloses the electronic device comprises a computation device that analyzes outputs of the first image sensor (paragraph 0023, and figure 1: 16). Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the computation device analyzes outputs of the second image sensor.
In analogous art, Ornes discloses an electronic device that includes a computation device that analyzes outputs of a first and second image sensor (column 12, lines 4-41; the image from the first sensor is used to perform coarse motion detection, and the image from the second sensor is used to perform fine motion detection). Ornes teaches that the use of a computation device that analyzes outputs of a first and second image sensor is preferred in order to corroborate motion detection and reduce false positives (column 2, lines 25-47, column 4, lines 41-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the computation device analyzes outputs of the first and second image sensor in order to corroborate motion detection and reduce false positives, as suggested by Ornes.
In regard to claim 11, note Silsby and Ornes discloses that the computation device comprises: a processor, or a graphics processing unit (GPU) (Silsby: paragraphs 0023, and figure 1: 16; Ornes: column 12, lines 4-41).
In regard to claim 12, note Ornes discloses that the analysis uses a pretrained neural network (column 12, lines 4-41).
In regard to claim 13, note the primary reference of Silsby in view of Jelinek discloses an electronic device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the electronic device is configured to dynamically set a threshold for motion detection based at least in part on an output of the first image sensor.
In analogous art, Ornes discloses an electronic device that includes a first and second sensor that are used to detect motion, wherein the electronic device is configured to dynamically set a threshold for motion detection based at least in part on an output of the first image sensor (column 4, lines 15-40, column 15, lines 12-21). Ornes teaches that dynamically setting a threshold for motion detection based at least in part on an output of the first image sensor is preferred in order to prevent missing motion events, as well as avoiding the detection of insignificant events, by tuning the motion sensitivity (column 4, lines 15-40, column 15, lines 12-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the electronic device is configured to dynamically set a threshold for motion detection based at least in part on an output of the first image sensor, in order to prevent missing motion events, as well as avoiding the detection of insignificant events, by tuning the motion sensitivity, as suggested by Ornes.
In regard to claim 14, note the primary reference of Silsby in view of Jelinek discloses an electronic device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the electronic device is configured to analyze at least a portion of an output of the second image sensor based at least in part on an output of the first image sensor.
In analogous art, Ornes discloses an electronic device that is configured to analyze at least a portion of an output of a second image sensor based at least in part on an output of a first image sensor (column 12, lines 4-41; the image from the first sensor is used to perform coarse motion detection, and the image from the second sensor is cropped based at least in part on output of the first sensor to perform fine motion detection). Ornes teaches that analyzing at least a portion of an output of a second image sensor based at least in part on an output of a first image sensor is preferred in order to corroborate motion detection and reduce false positives (column 2, lines 25-47, column 4, lines 41-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the electronic device is configured to analyze at least a portion of an output of the second image sensor based at least in part on an output of the first image sensor, in order to corroborate motion detection and reduce false positives, as suggested by Ornes.
In regard to claim 15, note Ornes discloses that at least the portion of the output of the second image sensor is affected by the motion detected by the first image sensor (column 12, lines 4-41; the image from the first sensor is used to perform coarse motion detection, and the corresponding portion of the image from the second sensor is cropped based at least in part on output of the first sensor to perform fine motion detection).
In regard to claim 18, note the primary reference of Silsby in view of Jelinek discloses an electronic device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the electronic device is configured to recommend a remedial action based at least in part on outputs of the first image sensor and the second image sensor.
In analogous art, Ornes discloses an electronic device that is configured to analyze the outputs of a first and second sensor, and recommend a remedial action based at least in part on outputs of the first image sensor and the second image sensor (column 4, lines 41-67, column 12, lines 20-41; an alert/notification is sent based on the analysis of the sensor outputs). The Examiner notes that recommending a remedial action based on detection motion/objects in image data is well known in surveillance systems, in order to provide a user with awareness of potential security threats/intruders. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the electronic device is configured to recommend a remedial action based at least in part on outputs of the first image sensor and the second image sensor, in order to provide a user with awareness of potential security threats/intruders, as is well known in the art.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silsby et al. (US Pub. 2009/0002501), in view of Jelinek (US Pub. 2011/0187880), and further in view Cohen et al. (US Pub. 2018/0359392).
In regard to claim 17, note the primary reference of Silsby in view of Jelinek discloses an electronic device, as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. Therefore, it can be seen that the primary reference fails to explicitly disclose that the first image sensor has a lower power consumption than the second image sensor.
In analogous art, Cohen discloses an electronic device having a first and second image sensor, wherein the first image sensor has a lower power consumption than the second image sensor (paragraph 0028, and figure 1: 106, 110; the image sensors are driven to have different resolutions, wherein the lower resolution sensor has a lower power consumption). Cohen teaches that reducing the power consumption of one of the sensors is preferred in order to prevent an increase in power required for multiple cameras to be simultaneously operated (paragraph 0010). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the primary reference such that the first image sensor has a lower power consumption than the second image sensor, in order to prevent an increase in power required for multiple cameras to be simultaneously operated, as suggested by Cohen.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2002/0015094: note the use of an imaging device that includes two image sensors that capture images with different wavelength bands, and the use of motion detected using one sensor, to control the operation of the second camera.
US 2011/0169960: note the use of an imaging device that includes two image sensors that capture images with different wavelength bands, and the use of motion detected using one sensor, to compensate motion present on the other camera.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISS S YODER III whose telephone number is (571)272-7323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Lin Ye can be reached at (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 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.
/CHRISS S YODER III/Examiner, Art Unit 2638