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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9, 13-15, 18 and 20 are amended.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1, 13-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fendt (US 20200128165 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1).
Concerning claims 1 and 13, Fendt teaches an apparatus for performing auto-exposure precognition by an apparatus (fig. 1; ¶¶0040-0046), the apparatus comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions (¶¶0033-0034: a memory is implicit for storing the programming instructions for the processor); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory (¶¶0033-0034),
wherein the instructions are configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors (¶¶0033-0034), cause the apparatus to:
obtain, by a first camera having a first field-of-view (FoV), a first frame (¶¶0040-0041: “First image data can preferably be recorded by means of the at least one first vehicle camera 12, 14, 16”; fig. 2: visual fields 12.1. 14.1, and 16.1 for cameras 12, 14, and 16, respectively);
obtain, by a second camera having a second FoV different from the first FoV, an image (¶¶0042-0043: “The visual field 18.1 of the vehicle camera 18 is substantially directed to the front. As a result, the second vehicle camera 18 can capture an outer front surrounding region of the vehicle 1”; fig. 2: visual field 18.1 for camera 18 shows a different FoV than visual fields 12.1. 14.1, and 16.1 for cameras 12, 14, and 16, respectively.);
predict, by an auto-exposure precognition component, a second frame subsequent to the first frame based on the image (fig. 1: steps 103-106; ¶¶0044-0046: a future brightness condition in image data from at least one first vehicle camera 12, 14, or 16 (i.e., a second frame subsequent to the first frame) is determined based on a detected region having altered brightness within the image data from vehicle camera 18);
obtain, by the auto-exposure precognition component, image information corresponding to a region-of-interest (ROI) of the predicted second frame (fig. 1: steps 103-106; fig. 3: altered brightness 24; ¶¶0044-0046: “a region having altered brightness 24 is detected within the second image data”. This “region having altered brightness” of the second image data is compare the “remaining” regions of the second image data, therefore, it is considered to be a “region-of-interest”.);
extract, by the auto-exposure precognition component, auto-exposure information corresponding to the second frame from the image information, based on the ROI of the predicted second frame (fig. 1: steps 104-106; ¶¶0045-0046 – determining required change of an exposure value based on the second image data. Transmitting the changed exposure value to the at least one first vehicle camera 12, 14, or 16); and
capture, by the first camera, the second frame using the auto-exposure information (fig. 1: steps 105-106; ¶¶0046-0047 – “…record[ing] first image data based on the changed exposure values”). Not explicitly taught is the image information provided by the second camera operating in a reduced capability mode that selectively provides the image information corresponding to the ROI of the predicted frame.
Miyazaki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an imaging method using a second camera operating in a reduced capability mode that selectively provides image information corresponding a ROI (¶¶0224-0225). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Miyazaki to the Fendt invention and operate the second camera in a reduced functionality mode that selectively provides the image information corresponding to the ROI of the predicted frame. Selectively providing reduced image data is a technique that is well-known in the art and operating the second camera in such a manner can reduce the communication amount of image data as a whole, and can reduce power consumption (Miyazaki, ¶0225).
Concerning claim 14, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Fendt further teaches the apparatus, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
capture, by the first camera, the first frame (¶¶0040-0041).
Miyazaki further teaches the apparatus, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
obtain, by the second camera operating in the reduced capability mode, the image information corresponding to the region-of-interest (ROI) of the predicted second frame (¶¶0224-0225).
Concerning claim 16, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Fendt further teaches the apparatus, wherein a first auto-exposure configuration of the first camera is correlated to a second auto-exposure configuration of the second camera (¶0026; ¶¶0044-0046).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segapelli et al. (US 20200396367 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1).
Concerning claim 20, Segapelli et al. (hereinafter Segapelli) teaches an electronic device, the electronic device comprising:
an imaging sensor configured to (fig. 1: image sensor 110):
obtain a first frame (¶0051: the image sensor can capture an image (e.g., current image); fig. 7: step 702; ¶0096);
predict a second frame subsequent to the first frame (fig. 7: step 706; ¶0100: predicting the future image); and
obtain image information corresponding to a region-of-interest of the predicted second frame (fig. 7: steps 704-708; ¶¶0100-0103: one or more motion characteristics, future exposure settings, etc. Based on the one or more motion characteristics, a “location” of a portion of the current image is used for determining one or more future exposure settings for the image sensor.);
a memory storing instructions (fig. 8: memory 815; ¶¶0105-0106); and
one or more processors communicatively coupled to the imaging sensor and to the memory (fig. 8: processor 810, memory 815; ¶¶0105-0106),
wherein the instructions are configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors, cause the electronic device to (¶¶0105-0106):
obtain, from the imaging sensor, the first frame and the image information (¶0051: the image sensor can capture an image (e.g., current image); fig. 7: steps 702-708; ¶¶0096-0103);
extract auto-exposure information corresponding to the second frame from the image information, based on the ROI of the predicted second frame (fig. 7: steps 706-708; ¶¶0100-0103); and
capture, using the imaging sensor, the second frame using the auto- exposure information (fig. 7: steps 706-708; ¶¶0100-0103 – capturing a future image, claim 20).
Not explicitly taught is the image information provided in a reduced capability mode that selectively provides the image information corresponding to the ROI of the predicted frame.
Miyazaki, in a similar field of endeavor, wherein image information is provided in a reduced capability mode that selectively provides image information corresponding a ROI (¶¶0216-217: single camera setup; ¶¶0224-0225: multiple camera setup – In both setups, ROI information is selectively transmitted and processed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Miyazaki to the Fendt invention and operate in a reduced functionality mode that selectively provides the image information corresponding to the ROI of the predicted frame. Selectively providing reduced image data is a technique that is well-known in the art and operating in such a manner can reduce the amount of image data transmitted, and can reduce power consumption (Miyazaki, ¶0216, ¶0218).
Claims 2-7, 9, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fendt (US 20200128165 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1) and Linde et al. (US 20190108652 A1).
Concerning claim 2, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the second FoV is greater than the first FoV.
Linde et al. (hereinafter Linde), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a multi-camera system that determines appropriate settings for the predicted future location and orientation of the system, wherein the second FoV is greater than the first FoV (¶0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Linde to the Fendt in view of Miyazaki invention and include a second camera with an FoV greater than the FoV of a first camera in order to provide different types of coverage between the cameras (Linde, ¶0020).
Concerning claim 3, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 2. Fendt further teaches the method, wherein the image is out of the first FOV (fig. 2: The visual field of vehicle camera 18 is forward facing in reference to the vehicle. Vehicle cameras 12, 14, and 16 are rearward facing, therefore, images captured from vehicle camera 18 would be out of the field of view of vehicle cameras 12, 14, and 16.; ¶¶0040-0042).
Concerning claim 4, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 3. Linde further teaches the method, wherein the second FoV is between 70 degrees and 100 degrees (¶0020).
Concerning claim 5, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 3. Fendt further teaches the method, wherein a first auto-exposure configuration of the first camera is correlated to a second auto-exposure configuration of the second camera (¶0026; ¶¶0044-0046).
Concerning claim 6, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 5. Fendt further teaches the method, wherein the extracting of the auto-exposure information comprises adjusting the auto-exposure information corresponding to the second frame based on a difference between the first auto-exposure configuration and the second auto-exposure configuration (¶0024; ¶¶0044-0046).
Concerning claim 7, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 3. Miyazaki further teaches the method, wherein the obtaining of the image information comprises obtaining only the image information corresponding to the region-of-interest (ROI) of the predicted second frame using the second camera operating in the reduced capability mode (¶¶0224-0225: “The second camera does not generate image data for a pixel region where no event has occurred.”).
Concerning claim 9, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 5. Linde further the method, wherein the second FoV is greater than 100 degrees (¶0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Linde to the Fendt invention and include a second camera with an FoV greater than 100 degrees in order to provide different types of coverage between the cameras (Linde, ¶0020).
Concerning claim 15, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the second FoV is between 70 degrees and 100 degrees.
Linde, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a multi-camera system that determines appropriate settings for the predicted future location and orientation of the system, wherein the second FoV is between 70 degrees and 100 degrees (¶0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Linde to the Fendt in view of Miyazaki invention and include a second camera with an FoV between 70 degrees and 100 degrees in order to provide different types of coverage between the cameras (Linde, ¶0020).
Concerning claim 18, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the second FoV is greater than 100 degrees.
Linde et al. (hereinafter Linde), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a multi-camera system that determines appropriate settings for the predicted future location and orientation of the system, wherein the second FoV is greater than 100 degrees (¶0020). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Linde to the Fendt in view of Miyazaki invention and include a second camera with an FoV greater than 100 degrees in order to provide different types of coverage between the cameras (Linde, ¶0020).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fendt (US 20200128165 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1), further in view of Linde et al. (US 20190108652 A1) and Tan et al. (US 20170289421 A1).
Concerning claim 8, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde teaches the method of claim 3. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the extracting of the auto-exposure information comprises adjusting the auto-exposure information based on at least one of: a first difference between a pixel response and a pixel size of the first camera and a pixel response and a pixel size of the second camera; or a second difference between a responsivity of the first camera and a responsivity of the second camera.
Tan et al. (hereinafter Tan), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches setting imaging parameters of imagers, wherein the extracting of the auto-exposure information comprises adjusting the auto-exposure information based on at least one of:
a first difference between a pixel response and a pixel size of the first camera and a pixel response and a pixel size of the second camera; or
a second difference between a responsivity of the first camera and a responsivity of the second camera (¶0029: knowledge of the responsivity of each imager as a function of distance away from the respective imager and/or the light intensity level is used for correcting exposure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Tan to the Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Linde invention in order to correct exposure values that correspond to the determined distance and/or the determined light intensity level of the imager (Tan, ¶0029).
Claims 10-11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fendt (US 20200128165 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1) and Segapelli et al. (US 20200396367 A1).
Concerning claim 10, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the method of claim 1. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the predicting of the second frame comprises: determining, by a predicting component, an angular motion of the first frame; and predicting, by the predicting component, a region-of-interest (ROI) of the second frame based on the angular motion.
Segapelli et al (hereinafter Segapelli), in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling exposure settings based on motion characteristics associated with an image sensor, wherein the predicting of the second frame comprises:
determining, by a predicting component, an angular motion of the first frame (¶¶0067-0069); and
predicting, by the predicting component, a region-of-interest (ROI) of the second frame based on the angular motion (fig. 4: ROI 402 & 452; ¶¶0067-0069; ¶¶0076-0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Segapelli into the Fendt in view of Miyazaki invention in order to control the exposure of an image based on motion characteristics associated with an image sensor (Segapelli ¶0001).
Concerning claim 11, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Segapelli teaches the method of claim 10. Segapelli further teaches the method, wherein the determining of the angular motion comprises:
obtaining, from a motion sensor of the apparatus, the angular motion (¶0054; ¶¶0067-0069).
Concerning claim 19, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: determine, by a predicting component, an angular motion of the first frame; and predict, by the predicting component, a region-of-interest (ROI) of the second frame based on the angular motion.
Segapelli et al (hereinafter Segapelli), in the same field of endeavor, teaches
determining, by a predicting component, an angular motion of the first frame (¶¶0067-0069); and
predicting, by the predicting component, a region-of-interest (ROI) of the second frame based on the angular motion (fig. 4: ROI 402 & 452; ¶¶0067-0069; ¶¶0076-0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Segapelli into the Fendt in view of Miyazaki invention in order to control the exposure of an image based on motion characteristics associated with an image sensor (Segapelli ¶0001).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fendt (US 20200128165 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1), further in view of Segapelli et al. (US 20200396367 A1) and Shimada (US 20200128183 A1).
Concerning claim 12, Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Segapelli teaches the method of claim 10. Not explicitly taught is the method, wherein the determining of the angular motion comprises: determining the angular motion of the first frame by performing an optical flow operation on the first frame.
Segapelli, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a method for controlling exposure settings based on motion characteristics associated with an image sensor, wherein the determining of the angular motion comprises:
determining the angular motion of the first frame by performing an optical flow operation on the first frame (¶0073: “The optical flow-based motion vector may indicate a direction and a rate of an angular motion of the electronic device 102…”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Shimada into the Fendt in view of Miyazaki and Segapelli invention in order to indicate a direction and a rate of an angular motion vehicle cameras (Shimada, ¶0073).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fendt (US 20200128165 A1) in view of Miyazaki (US 20230224558 A1) and Tan et al. (US 20170289421 A1).
Concerning claim 17, Fendt in view of Miyazaki teaches the apparatus of claim 16. Not explicitly taught is the apparatus, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to: adjust the auto-exposure information based on at least one of: a first difference between the first auto-exposure configuration and the second auto-exposure configuration; a second difference between a pixel response and a pixel size of the first camera and a pixel response and a pixel size of the second camera; or a third difference between a responsivity of the first camera and a responsivity of the second camera.
Tan et al. (hereinafter Tan), in a similar field of endeavor, teaches setting imaging parameters of imagers, wherein the instructions are further configured to, when individually or collectively executed by the one or more processors, cause the apparatus to:
adjust the auto-exposure information based on at least one of:
a first difference between the first auto-exposure configuration and the second auto-exposure configuration;
a second difference between a pixel response and a pixel size of the first camera and a pixel response and a pixel size of the second camera; or
a third difference between a responsivity of the first camera and a responsivity of the second camera (¶0029: knowledge of the responsivity of each imager as a function of distance away from the respective imager and/or the light intensity level is used for correcting exposure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to add the features of Tan to the Fendt in view of Miyazaki invention in order to correct exposure values that correspond to the determined distance and/or the determined light intensity level of the imager (Tan, ¶0029).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of the remarks, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to objections to claims 4, 9, 15 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amendments, the objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 10 of the remarks, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to rejections of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) and §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. In light of the amendments, the rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-13 of the remarks, filed 06/15/2026, with respect to rejections of claims 1, 13 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered, but they are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The corresponding dependent claims remain rejected for at least the reasons set forth above due to their respective dependencies.
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 JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425
Prosecution Insights