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 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by LEE et al (US 2015/0301630).
Regarding claim 1, LEE discloses a method for adjusting a frame rate of a photoelectric navigation device [mouse] (abstract; paragraph 4,5,16), comprising: acquiring a first image frame N and a second image frame N+1 by the photoelectric navigation device at a first frame rate, wherein an acquiring time of the first image frame is earlier than that of the second image frame, and the first frame rate is a current frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device (paragraph 4, 8-14,22-29); determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device (Figure 1A-2; paragraph 22-29); determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame when the current moving displacement is within a predetermined range between a high displacement threshold and a low displacement threshold (paragraph 8-14, 22-29); and adjusting the first frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device to a second frame rate when the matching result does not meet a predetermined matching condition, wherein the second frame rate is a frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device at a next moment, and the second frame rate is greater than the first frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; predetermined matching condition correspond to velocity/acceleration is between a current range (i.e. determination of above/below threshold limit does not match within current range of threshold to change frame rate)).
Regarding claim 2, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the method further comprises: keeping the first frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device unchanged when the matching result meets the predetermined matching condition (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; predetermined matching condition correspond to velocity/acceleration is between a current range).
Regarding claim 3, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the method further comprises: adjusting the first frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device to a third frame rate when the current moving displacement exceeds the high displacement threshold, wherein the third frame rate is a frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device at the next moment, and the third frame rate is greater than the first frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; third frame rate corresponding to FR_B, FR_C, or FR_D based on current frame rate below FR_D).
Regarding claim 4, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the method further comprises: adjusting the first frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device to a fourth frame rate when the current moving displacement is lower than the low displacement threshold, wherein the fourth frame rate is a frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device at the next moment, and the fourth frame rate is less than the first frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; fourth frame rate corresponding to FR_A, FR_B, or FR_C based on current frame rate above FR_A).
Regarding claim 5, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the second frame rate is a highest frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; FR_D).
Regarding claim 6, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the second frame rate is a highest frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; FR_D).
Regarding claim 7, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the second frame rate is a highest frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; FR_D).
Regarding claim 8, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the second frame rate is a highest frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29; FR_D).
Regarding claim 9, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the third frame rate is an adjacent frame rate greater than the first frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29).
Regarding claim 10, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the fourth frame rate is an adjacent frame rate less than the first frame rate (paragraph 8-14, 22-29).
Regarding claim 11, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining most relevant regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (paragraph 4, 5, 34); and determining a similarity between the most relevant regions as the matching result, and when the similarity is less than a predetermined similarity threshold, indicating that the matching result does not meet the predetermined matching condition (paragraph 4, 5, 34; correlation between captured images would include comparison of similarity between relevant regions).
Claim(s) 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KONG et al (US 2023/0221806).
Regarding claim 19, KONG discloses a photoelectric navigation device (abstract), comprising: a memory, an image sensor 103, a processor 104 and a computer program stored on the memory and executable on the processor, wherein the image sensor is configured to acquire an image frame (abstract; Figure 1; memory of some form would be inherently be necessary), and the processor performs the computer program for: acquiring a first image frame and a second image frame by the photoelectric navigation device at a first frame rate, wherein an acquiring time of the first image frame is earlier than that of the second image frame, and the first frame rate is a current frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device (Figure 2; paragraph 14); determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device (Figure 2; paragraph 14); determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame when the current moving displacement is within a predetermined range between a high displacement threshold and a low displacement threshold (paragraph 14, 37, 38); and adjusting the first frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device to a second frame rate when the matching result does not meet a predetermined matching condition, wherein the second frame rate is a frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device at a next moment, and the second frame rate is greater than the first frame rate (S208, S211, S212 - Figure 2; paragraph 37, 38).
Regarding claim 20, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the first frame rate of the photoelectric navigation device is kept unchanged when the matching result meets the predetermined matching condition (211 – Figure 2; paragraph 37, 38).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2015/0301630) in view of LIM et al (US 2020/0401237).
Regarding claim 12, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (paragraph 4, 5, 34); and determining a similarity between the regions as the matching result, and when the similarity is less than a predetermined similarity threshold, indicating that the matching result does not meet the predetermined matching condition (paragraph 4, 5, 34; correlation between captured images would include comparison of similarity between relevant regions). However, LEE does not expressly disclose determine most relevant regions. In a similar field of endeavor, LIM discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining most relevant regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (Figure 7; paragraph 11-13); and determining a similarity between the most relevant regions as the matching result (Figure 7; paragraph 11-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of LIM, since LIM states that such a modification would reduce consumption power during navigation. Furthermore as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by LIM.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (paragraph 4, 5, 34); and determining a similarity between the regions as the matching result, and when the similarity is less than a predetermined similarity threshold, indicating that the matching result does not meet the predetermined matching condition (paragraph 4, 5, 34; correlation between captured images would include comparison of similarity between relevant regions). However, LEE does not expressly disclose determine most relevant regions. In a similar field of endeavor, LIM discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining most relevant regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (Figure 7; paragraph 11-13); and determining a similarity between the most relevant regions as the matching result (Figure 7; paragraph 11-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of LIM, since LIM states that such a modification would reduce consumption power during navigation. Furthermore as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by LIM.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (paragraph 4, 5, 34); and determining a similarity between the regions as the matching result, and when the similarity is less than a predetermined similarity threshold, indicating that the matching result does not meet the predetermined matching condition (paragraph 4, 5, 34; correlation between captured images would include comparison of similarity between relevant regions). However, LEE does not expressly disclose determine most relevant regions. In a similar field of endeavor, LIM discloses wherein the determining a matching result of the first image frame and the second image frame comprises: determining most relevant regions of the first image frame and the second image frame according to the current moving displacement (Figure 7; paragraph 11-13); and determining a similarity between the most relevant regions as the matching result (Figure 7; paragraph 11-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of LIM, since LIM states that such a modification would reduce consumption power during navigation. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by LIM.
Claim(s) 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al (US 2015/0301630) in view of CHIRIKOV (US 2007/0150194).
Regarding claim 15, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to a vector. However, LEE does not expressly disclose wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector. In a similar field of endeavor, CHIRIKOV discloses wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector (Figure 3; paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of CHIRIKOV, since CHIRIKOV states that such a modification would reduce the time to require obtaining of images during a position determination. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by CHIRIKOV.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to a vector. However, LEE does not expressly disclose wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector. In a similar field of endeavor, CHIRIKOV discloses wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector (Figure 3; paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of CHIRIKOV, since CHIRIKOV states that such a modification would reduce the time to require obtaining of images during a position determination. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by CHIRIKOV.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to a vector. However, LEE does not expressly disclose wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector. In a similar field of endeavor, CHIRIKOV discloses wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector (Figure 3; paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of CHIRIKOV, since CHIRIKOV states that such a modification would reduce the time to require obtaining of images during a position determination. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by CHIRIKOV.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejections of the parent claim concerning the subject matter this claim is dependent upon. LEE further discloses determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to a vector. However, LEE does not expressly disclose wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector. In a similar field of endeavor, CHIRIKOV discloses wherein the determining a current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device comprises: determining a prediction vector according to a historical moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device; and determining the current moving displacement of the photoelectric navigation device according to the prediction vector (Figure 3; paragraph 34). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify LIM to include the teachings of CHIRIKOV, since CHIRIKOV states that such a modification would reduce the time to require obtaining of images during a position determination. Furthermore, as both inventions are analogous, such a modification would provide additional correlation techniques based on those disclose by CHIRIKOV.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIEL A BALAOING whose telephone number is (571)272-7317. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-4AM M-F.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at (571) 270-7230. 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.
/ARIEL A BALAOING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624