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
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cote et al. (2012/0081566).
Regarding claim 1, Cote discloses a video signal transmitting device, comprising: a YC conversion portion (136) to which RAW data (134) output from an imaging element (94) by performing imaging is input, and configured to directly convert RAW data into YC data consisting of luminance data (note Y in YC1C2 in step 136), first chrominance data (note C1 in YC1C2), and second chrominance data for output (note C2 in YC1C2); a digital-to-analog conversion portion (140) configured to convert YC data output from the YC conversion portion into an analog signal for output; and an analog transmitting portion (82 or 120) configured to transmit an analog signal converted by the digital-to-analog conversion portion to an external device (28).
It should be noted that an D/A converter is either inherently resided in ISP logics 82 and 120 or the display 28 and includes transmitting means to transmit the analog display data to the final analog display device means at the display 28 (note par. 159, 190).
Regarding claim 4, Cote discloses the YC conversion portion converts the RAW data into YC data in YC422 format (note par. 241, 242, table 4, 576, 577).
Regarding claim 5, Cote inherently discloses that the YC conversion portion converts the RAW data into YC data in YC422 format using a RAW clock corresponding to a signal pitch of the RAW data and a YC clock with a frequency of 1/2 times the RAW clock (note par. 577).
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) 6, and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cote et al. (2012/0081566).
Regarding claim 6, Cote does not disclose a receiving portion configured to receive an analog signal transmitted from a video signal transmitting device according to claim 1; an analog-to-digital conversion portion configured to convert an analog signal received by the receiving portion into YC data for output; and a RAW conversion portion configured to convert YC data output from the analog-to-digital conversion portion into RAW data for output. However, knowing that the display 28 in Cote requires to reverse the order of the steps in Fig. 9 in order to display the received YC1C2 color space signals, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an A/D converter and a RAW conversion unit into Cote to perform the well known functions as claimed. That is, without reverse the steps in Fig. 9, the display 28 simply cannot displayed the received image data. Thus, including the A/D converter and the RAW conversion unit into Cote would have been clearly obvious.
Regarding claim 8, in addition of rejection to claim 6, in view of teaching in paragraph 577, it would also have been obvious to configure the RAW conversion portion converts YC data output from the analog-to-digital conversion portion into RAW data for output using a RAW clock corresponding to a signal pitch of the RAW data and a YC clock with a frequency of 1/2 times the RAW clock to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 9, in addition of reasoning above, Cote further discloses an RGB conversion portion that converts RAW data output from the RAW conversion portion into RGB data for output since the display device 28 display the image data in RGB format (see par. 532-534).
Regarding claim 10, Cote discloses that the RGB conversion portion applies a demosaic process in response to converting RAW data into RGB data (note par. 532-534).
Regarding claim 11, in addition of reasoning above and in view of par. 236, 237 and 239 , it would have been obvious to configure, in a case where YC data in YC422 format is output from the analog-to-digital conversion portion, the RAW conversion portion to convert YC data in YC422 format to RAW data in RAW8 format, and the RGB conversion portion to convert RAW data in RAW8 format to RGB data in RGB888 format to perform the well known functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Cote does not disclose that the RGB conversion portion is configured by an integrated circuit different from an integrated circuit constituting the receiving portion, the analog-to-digital conversion portion, and the RAW conversion portion as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that using an independent integrated circuit to perform the a specify task is well known in the art. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design an independent integrated circuit as the RGB conversion circuit in Cote to perform the well known functions as claimed. Such design would have considered an obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 13, see similar rejections as set forth above.
Regarding claim 14, Cote does not disclose a camera module device in which the camera and the video signal transmitting device are integrated; and a display module device in which the video signal repeating device and the display device are integrated as claimed. The examiner takes Official Notice that using integrated circuits to integrate different components in an electronic device is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the camera module with the video transmitting device, and to integrate the display module with the video repeating device. It would have been a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 15, Cote inherently discloses that the display module device outputs a signal output from the video signal repeating device to a storage medium.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3 and 7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL LEE whose telephone number 571-272-7349. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, John Miller, can be reached on 571-272-7353. 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).
/MICHAEL LEE/ Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2422
Prosecution Insights