DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e),120, and 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
III. Double Patenting
A. Basis for nonstatutory 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.
B. Anticipatory type
Claims 1,4-9, and 12-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,267,585 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-16 of the ‘585 patent anticipate instant claims 1,4-9, and 12-20, respectively. Instant dependent claims 4-8,12-16, and 18-20 are respective verbatim recitations of claims 2-6,8-12, and 14-16 of the ‘585 patent. Instant independent claims 1,9, and 17 are respective broader recitations of claims 1,7, and 13 of the ‘585 patent, where the instant claims require only general control of the camera pipeline to process the first resolution images from each of the plurality of the cameras and to process the second resolution images from the one of the plurality of cameras and independent claims 1,7, and 13 of the ‘585 patent require the more specific white balancing processing of the first and second resolution images.
IV. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 2,3,10, and 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, claim 2 and 10 each requires that “the processor is further configured to…provide stitched…image data from the shared buffer for CV processing,” while claim 1 and 9 (on which claims 2 and 10 respectively depend) require that “only one of the plurality of cameras is configured to provide images having a second resolution in CV mode.” That is, claim 2 when read with claim 1 (and 10 with 9) would require stitching images from both cameras in the CV mode while only one camera outputs image data in that mode. This limitation is facially inconsistent and, therefore, ambiguous. Furthermore, the specification specifically notes that the computer vision algorithms using stitched second resolution images are performed during the low power CV mode (see, e.g., para. [0093]). Claims 3 and 11 are rejected because they depend on claims 2 and 10, respectively, and fail to cure their indefiniteness. To overcome this rejection, the examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 9 to recite that both cameras can output image data in the CV mode or amend claims 2 and 10 to remove language that suggests stitching in the CV mode.
V. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
A. Claims 1,4,5,9,12,13,17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2020/0084387 A1) in view of Ohishi et al. (WO 2016/174858 A1) and further in view of Moloney et al. (US 2019/0222756 A1)
As to claim 1, Baldwin et al. teaches eyewear ([0039], line 7), comprising:
a plurality of cameras (Fig. 2, first camera “201” and second camera “202”) configured to generate images ([0043], lines 1-4), wherein the plurality of cameras is configured to provide images having a first resolution in a high power augmented reality (AR) mode, and to provide images having a second resolution in a low power computer vision (CV) mode ([0027]; [0029]; and [0099], lines 1-6);
a camera pipeline (Fig. 2, data flow within device “200”);
a processor (Fig. 2, image signal processor “212”; [0049]) configured to:
selectively control the plurality of cameras to provide the images, wherein each of the plurality of cameras is configured to provide images having a first resolution in the (AR) mode (Fig. 1; [0027] and [0029] - mode in which both cameras are active; [0043], lines 6-9; [0045], lines 4-8);
selectively control the plurality of cameras such that only one of the plurality of cameras is configured to provide the images having a second resolution ([0060], lines 1-6) in CV mode ([0065], lines 1-9; note, also, [0042], lines 1-3, “…device…for placing one or more cameras in and out of a low power mode.”), wherein the first resolution is higher than the second resolution ([0099], lines 1-6), and wherein the plurality of cameras consume less power in the CV mode than the high power mode (e.g., [0049] – low power mode vs. mode in which both cameras are active); and
control the camera pipeline to process the first resolution images from each of the plurality of cameras ([0045], lines 4-8).
The claim differs from Baldwin et al. in that it requires (1) that the eyewear include a frame, a display supported by the frame, and that the plurality of cameras be coupled to the frame. Also, Baldwin et al. discloses that low resolution images are captured during the low power (i.e., [0060], lines 1-6; [0069], lines 1-9) but does not specifically disclose that the low- resolution images are processed in any way during that mode. That is, Baldwin et al. fails to disclose the processor function to (2) control the camera pipeline to process the second resolution images from the one of the plurality of cameras to provide second resolution images.
(1) In the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Ohishi et al. discloses augmented-reality (AR) eyewear including a frame (Fig. 1, rims “101” and “102”) to which multiple cameras (Fig. 1, main camera “111,” right camera “115,” and left camera “116”) are coupled ([0012], lines 4-7) and on which a transmissive display (Fig. 1, right and left transmissive display “151/152”) is supported ([0012], lines 1 and 2). In light of the teaching of Ohishi et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to position Baldwin’s cameras and a display in and on an AR eyewear frame as illustrated by Ohishi et al. because this would allow for advantageous positioning for the cameras to capture images in the user’s field of view as well as allow for inconspicuous positioning of the cameras and display.
(2) Furthermore, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Moloney et al. discloses a mobile camera system (Fig. 1A, mobile camera “100”) that can be used in connection with smart glasses (e.g., [0025], lines 25-29). The system includes a plurality of cameras, one set of the plurality are low resolution (Fig. 1A, cameras “102a/b”) and one set are high resolution (Fig. 1A, cameras “102a/b”). During a low power mode, the low resolution cameras are used to detect movement during a computer vision mode to determine whether the high-resolution cameras should be activated for image capture ([0045], lines 1-11). In light of the teaching of Moloney et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the captured low resolution images of Baldwin et al. to detect movement that would necessitate active first and second cameras, for an AR stitching application for example, in conjunction with or in lieu of the IMU during the low power mode because an artisan of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that this would ensure that the low resolution images captured during the low power mode are not captured in vain and would provide a more accurate determination of when the camera should be taken out of the low power, compared to the IMU.
As to claim 4, Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al. and Moloney et al., teaches the eyewear of claim 1, wherein the processor is an image processor (see Baldwin et al., Fig. 2, image signal processor “212”).
As to claim 5, Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al. and Moloney et al., teaches the eyewear of claim 1, wherein the processor controls the one of the plurality of cameras to capture the images in the first resolution, and downscale the images to the second resolution (see Baldwin et al., [0060], lines 6-14).
Claims 9,12, and 13 are method claims reciting essentially the same steps as the processor functions of claims 1,4, and 5, respectively. Therefore, claims 9,12, and 13 are rejected as detailed above in claims 1-3 and 7.
As Baldwin et al. discloses the use of stored, processor-executable software to accomplish the reference’s functions ([0050]), the Examiner submits that the limitations of claims 17 and 18 are satisfied as detailed above in claims 1 and 5, respectively.
B. Claims 6,14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2020/0084387 A1) in view of Ohishi et al. (WO 2016/174858 A1) in view of Moloney et al. (US 2019/0222756 A1) in view of Golov et al. (US 2022/0032967 A1) and further in view of Cabral et al. (US 2018/0302569 A1)
As to claim 6, Baldwin et al., as modified by Moloney et al., teaches the eyewear of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to turn a first camera back on in the AR mode (see Baldwin et al., e.g., [0080]). Baldwin et al., however, fails to disclose that the status of both cameras when in the low-power mode. Therefore, Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi and Moloney et al., fail to disclose (1) that the processor selectively turns off a first camera of the plurality of cameras in the CV mode and (2) that the processor synchronizes the plurality of cameras when in the AR mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Golov et al. discloses a dual-camera system for a vehicle that may operate in a high-power mode and a low power mode. Specifically, the system evaluates a context of operation to determine whether the high power mode or low power mode is appropriate ([0043]). For example, when the vehicle is in rural area without many moving objects, the resolution and number of active cameras of the dual-camera system may be decreased (low-power mode) (1) ([0047], lines 1-5). Conversely, when the vehicle is in a congested area with many moving objects, the high-power mode is activated where the number of active cameras and their resolution is increased ([0030]). Further in the same field of endeavor, Cabral et al. discloses a multi-camera system for producing stitched images from the multiple cameras, where the cameras are synchronized (2) ([0039]).
In light of the teaching of Golov et al. and Cabral et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to deactivate the first camera of Baldwin’s two cameras (i.e., the camera not specifically placed in the low-power mode) when in the low-power mode and to synchronize Baldwin’s cameras when both are active because deactivating one camera would allow for additional power savings and synchronizing the cameras when in the high-power AR mode would, as Cabral et al. notes in para. [0039], ensure accurate stitching.
Claim 14 is a method claim reciting essentially the same steps as the processor
functions of claim 6. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected as detailed above in claim 6.
As Baldwin et al. discloses the use of stored, processor-executable software to accomplish the reference’s functions ([0050]), the Examiner submits that the limitations of claim 19 is satisfied as detailed above in claim 6.
C. Claims 7,15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2020/0084387 A1) in view of Ohishi et al. (WO 2016/174858 A1) in view of Moloney et al. (US 2019/0222756 A1) and further in view of Cabral et al. (US 2018/0302569 A1)
As to claim 7, Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al. and Moloney et al., teaches the eyewear of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate stitched images (see Baldwin et al., [0045], lines 4-8). The claim differs from Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al., and Moloney et al. in that it requires that the processor synchronizes the stitched images. However, further in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cabral et al. discloses a multi-camera system for producing stitched images from the multiple cameras, where images from the cameras are synchronized ([0039]). In light of the teaching of Cabral et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to synchronize image capture of Baldwin’s cameras when both are active to perform AR stitching because this would, as Cabral et al. notes in para. [0039], ensure accurate stitching.
Claim 15 is a method claim reciting essentially the same steps as the processor
functions of claim 7. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected as detailed above in claim 7.
As Baldwin et al. discloses the use of stored, processor-executable software to accomplish the reference’s functions ([0050]), the Examiner submits that the limitations of claim 20 is satisfied as detailed above in claim 7.
D. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldwin et al. (US 2020/0084387 A1) in view of Ohishi et al. (WO 2016/174858 A1) in view of Moloney et al. (US 2019/0222756 A1) in view of Cabral et al. (US 2018/0302569 A1) and further in view of Aleksic et al. (US 2011/0242356 A1)
As to claim 8, Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al., Moloney et al., and Cabral et al., teaches the eyewear of claim 7. The claim differs from Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al., Moloney et al., and Cabral et al., in that it requires that the processor is configured to match the frames from the plurality of cameras and put the matched frames in a buffer. However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Aleksic et al. discloses an imaging system that stores images in a buffer and aligns/matches those images for stitching ([0109]). In light of the teaching of Aleksic et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to store and align images from the cameras of Baldwin et al., as modified by Ohishi et al. and Moloney et al., in a buffer during the stitching application because this would ensure the accuracy of the stitching process by combining temporally-synchronized images.
Claim 16 is a method claim reciting essentially the same steps as the processor functions of claim 8. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected as detailed above in claim 8.
VI. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Sato et al. (US 2017/0289482 A1) discloses synchronizing image capture of first and second image sensors by synchronizing output of the respective vertical synchronization signals to the image sensors (Fig. 4A; [0035]), which is germane to the limitations claims 2,3,10, and 11 that have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
VII. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571)272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 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, Sinh Tran can be reached on 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
3/8/2024
Prosecution Insights