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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first wireless communication module” in claims 1-20
“a second wireless communication module” in claims 1-20
“a first image acquisition module” in claims 1-20
“a second image acquisition module” in claims 1-20
“a brightness detection unit” in claims 8-10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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, 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 112399167 A).[claim 1]
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a wireless smart wearable device (Figure 1), comprising a first portion and a second portion that can communicate with each other wirelessly (Figure 1, left and right portions; Paragraph 0008-0009, 0025-0026),
wherein the first portion comprises a first processor, a first wireless communication module, a first camera, and a first image acquisition module, and has a first clock, and the second portion comprises a second processor, a second wireless communication module, a second camera, and a second image acquisition module, and has a second clock (Paragraphs 0011, 0025-0030, each section includes a camera 101, wireless communication unit 1021, processing chip 102 and clock PLL 206);
the first image acquisition module is configured to transmit a first hardware trigger signal based on the first clock to the first camera so as to trigger the first camera to capture a first image, and acquire the first image (Paragraph 0030, 0053-0054; triggering cameras to capture resolution/ frame rate images according to activity detection unit 1032 in synchronization with the clock)
the second image acquisition module is configured to transmit a second hardware trigger signal based on the second clock to the second camera so as to trigger the second camera to capture a second image, and acquire the second image (Paragraph 0030, 0053-0054; triggering cameras to capture resolution/ frame rate images according to activity detection unit 1032 in synchronization with the clock); and
at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to, during continuous use of the first image acquisition module and the second image acquisition module, enable the first wireless communication module and the second wireless communication module to perform wireless communication with each other and/or wireless communication between both of them and a smart device, and determine a clock difference between the first wireless communication module and the second wireless communication module in performing the wireless communication respectively, the clock difference being used to achieve synchronization between the first hardware trigger signal and the second hardware trigger signal (Paragraphs 0027-0029; wirelessly transmitting a synchronization code, obtaining a timing synchronization error, i.e. difference, based on the received signal which is fed to PLL 206 so that reference clock for the second eyeglass unit that is synchronized with the reference clock of the first eyeglass unit in both frequency and phase).[claim 2]
Regarding claim 2, Li discloses wherein the wireless smart wearable device comprises a wireless smart glasses device, one of the first portion and the second portion is a left eyeglass portion and the other one is a right eyeglass portion (Paragraph 0025).[claim 12]
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 1. Therefore, claim 12 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
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) 3, 4, 13 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112399167 A) in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0308530 A1).[claim 3]
Regarding claim 3, Li does not disclose wherein
the first image acquisition module and the first camera are connected via a first CSI interface and a first GPIO interface, and the second image acquisition module and the second camera are connected via a second CSI interface and a second GPIO interface.
Chang discloses a data transmission method for connecting a camera module to a processor including a CSI interface and a GPIO interface (Figure 2, Paragraphs 0074, 0079-0080) wherein the CSI interface is used to transmit image data (Paragraph 0079, 0166-0167) and the GPIO interface transmits control signals (Paragraph 0080, 0187). By including separate interfaces for image data and control simultaneous transfer of image data and control may be realized.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to include a CSI and GPIO interface for the first and second cameras as taught by Chang so that simultaneous transfer of image data and control signals may be realized.
Note following the teachings of Li in view of Chang, the combined system would include the first image acquisition module is further configured to be connected to the first camera via the first GPIO interface so as to transmit the first hardware trigger signal to the first camera (i.e. a control signal transmitted using the GPIO interface);
the first camera is further configured to, in response to receiving the first hardware trigger signal, initiate exposure and image capture and transmit an image to the first image acquisition module via the first CSI interface (i.e. image data captured in transmitted via the CSI interface);
the second image acquisition module is further configured to be connected to the second camera via the second GPIO interface so as to transmit the second hardware trigger signal to the second camera (i.e. a control signal transmitted using the GPIO interface); and
the second camera is further configured to, in response to receiving the second hardware trigger signal, initiate exposure and image capture and transmit an image to the second image acquisition module via the second CSI interface (i.e. image data captured in transmitted via the CSI interface).[claim 4]
Regarding claim 4, Li discloses wherein at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to, during the continuous use of the first image acquisition module and the second image acquisition module, enable one party of the first wireless communication module and the second wireless communication module to transmit a wireless signal to the other party and determine a value difference between clock counters at a first time point when the one party transmits the wireless signal and at a second time point when the other party receives the wireless signal, the value difference being used to achieve the synchronization between the first hardware trigger signal and the second hardware trigger signal (Paragraphs 0027-0029).[claims 13 and 14]
Claims 13 and 14 are method claims corresponding to apparatus claims 3 and 4. Therefore, claims 13 and 14 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 3 and 4.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112399167 A) in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0308530 A1) in view of Zhang (US 2016/0021292 A1).[claim 5]
Regarding claim 5, while Li discloses synchronizing clocks based on a wirelessly received synchronization code (e.g. Paragraphs 0027-0029), Li in view of Chang does not disclose wherein at least one of the first processor and the second processor is configured to, during the continuous use of the first image acquisition module and the second image acquisition module, enable the first wireless communication module and the second wireless communication module to each receive the wireless signal from the smart device; and determine a value difference between the clock counters at a third time point when the first wireless communication module receives the wireless signal and at a fourth time point when the second wireless communication module receives the wireless signal, the value difference being used to achieve the synchronization between the first hardware trigger signal and the second hardware trigger signal.
Zhang discloses a similar system in which a smart device may wirelessly transmit a synchronization signal to a plurality of cameras to provide clock synchronization (e.g. Figure 1; Paragraphs 0060-0065, 0076, 0080-0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to receive a clock synchronization signal from an external smart device as taught by Zhang and to synchronize the clocks of the cameras based on the synchronization signal as taught by Li so that the cameras may be synchronized with an external smart device thereby allowing all three devices to be in sync.[claim 15]
Claim 15 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 5.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112399167 A) in view of Chang et al. (US 2023/0308530 A1) in view of Official Notice.[claim 8]
Regarding claim 8, Li in view of Chang does not disclose wherein the first portion and the second portion each comprises a brightness detection unit configured to detect the brightness of ambient light of the corresponding camera; and
at least one of the first processor and the second processor is further configured to set exposure times for the first camera and the second camera based on the brightness detected by the first portion and the second portion respectively, so that the lower the detected brightness corresponding to a camera, the longer its exposure time.
Official Notice is taken that it is well known in the art to include a brightness detection unit configured to detect brightness of ambient light corresponding to a camera and to use a processor to set exposure times for the first camera and the second camera based on the brightness detected by the first portion and the second portion respectively, so that the lower the detected brightness corresponding to a camera, the longer its exposure time. By measuring ambient light and setting a corresponding exposure time, the resulting images captured by the camera may be properly exposed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to include brightness detection units and setting of exposure times for the first and second cameras as claimed so that the cameras may capture properly exposed images.[claim 18]
Claim 18 is a method claim corresponding to apparatus claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claim 8.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (CN 112399167 A) in view of Fisher et al. (US 2016/0299569 A1)[claim 11]
Regarding claim 11, Li does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one of the first processor and the second processor is further configured to generate a panoramic video or perform simultaneous localization and mapping by using the first image and the second image.
Fisher discloses a similar device where left and right cameras mounted on smart glasses are used to capture images of a scene and stitched together to form a panoramic video (e.g. Paragraphs 0131-0133).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to arrange capture images of a scene using left and right cameras and to stitch the images together to generate video as taught by Fisher in the system of Li so that wide angle video may be captured.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 9, 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20 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.[claims 6 and 16]
Regarding claims 6 and 16, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a system/method as claimed wherein the first processor is further configured to generate the first hardware trigger signal when the value of the clock counter of the first portion is a first predetermined value;
the second processor is further configured to generate the second hardware trigger signal when the value of the clock counter of the second portion is a second predetermined value; and
the difference between the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value is set based on the value difference, thereby characterizing the same time point.
While the prior art teaches triggering image capture based on a clock, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest the particular system/method for generating first and second trigger signals where the difference between the first predetermined value and the second predetermined value is set based on the value difference, thereby characterizing the same time point as claimed.[claims 7 and 17]
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a system/method as claimed wherein the first processor is further configured to generate a reference hardware trigger signal and acquire a reference value of the clock counter of the first portion at a trigger time point; enable the first wireless communication module to transmit the reference value to the second wireless communication module; and generate the first hardware trigger signal after a predetermined time delay subsequent to the trigger time point; and
the second processor is further configured to determine, based on the reference value, the predetermined time delay and the value difference of the clock counter, the value of the clock counter used to generate the second hardware trigger signal; and generate the second hardware trigger signal when the value of the clock counter of the second portion reaches a determined value, so that the first hardware trigger signal and the second hardware trigger signal are generated at the same time point.
While the prior art teaches triggering image capture based on a clock, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest generating trigger signals with the particular system/method claimed.[claims 9, 10, 19 and 20]
Regarding claims 9, 10, 19 and 20, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest a system/method as claimed wherein at least one of the first processor and the second processor is further configured to, for the first camera or the second camera, for which a longer exposure time is required to be set, enable the image acquisition module connected thereto to generate and transmit the corresponding hardware trigger signal a predetermined time in advance of the image acquisition module connected to the other camera.
While the prior art teaches setting exposure times, the prior art does not teach a system/method which enables the image acquisition module connected thereto to generate and transmit the corresponding hardware trigger signal a predetermined time in advance of the image acquisition module connected to the other camera as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al. US 2023/0147580 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J HENN whose telephone number is (571)272-7310. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday ~10-6.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/Timothy J Henn/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights