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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application No. 17/934,295 and 63/261,636, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite that an asynchronous image capture request from an additional client application is received during the capture of the set of image (which is assumed to be the “set of image frames at a first frame capture rate”; see claim objections below). However, this is not supported in either of the prior-filed applications. Specifically, there is no mention of when the request for an asynchronous capture is received with respect to the capture of the set of image frames at a first capture rate in the prior-filed applications. Fig. 5 shows the step of receiving a request for an asynchronous capture (510) however, there is no indication that this is during a capture of a set of image frames at a first capture rate. Step 420, which occurs just prior to step 510, merely states that a frame rate for capture is identified, but is silent on actually carrying out capturing at the identified frame rate. Fig. 7 shows asynchronous captures 710, 720, and 730 being carried out. However, none of these captures occur during the capture of a set of frames at a first capture rate (740, 760). Rather, the asynchronous captures 710, 720, and 730 occur before and after the capture of the set of frames a ta first capture rate. In addition, fig. 7 is silent when the asynchronous captures are actually requested.
In addition, claims 3, 10, and 18 recite that the asynchronous frame capture is triggered further in response to a motion rate of the electronic device. However, this is not supported in either of the prior-filed applications. Specifically, there is no mention of the asynchronous capture being triggered in response to a motion rate of the electronic device. Rather, the asynchronous capture is triggered in response to an asynchronous request (paragraph [0052] of the PG-PUB). The frame rate for the asynchronous capture is selected based on “the specifics of the asynchronous request” (which is never defined). There is no mention that the asynchronous capture is captured at a rate that is based on motion rate or that the asynchronous capture is triggered by anything other than an asynchronous request.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, receiving an asynchronous image capture request from an additional requesting client during the capture of the set of images (claims 1, 8, and 15) and triggering asynchronous capture in response to a motion rate of the electronic device (claims 3, 10, 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s) (see priority above). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9, 11-13, 15, 17-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,440 in view of Price et al. (US 2019/0295213 A1) hereinafter referenced as Price.
Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 teach all the limitations of claims 1, 8, 15 except that the asynchronous request is received during the capture of the set of images. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Price.
In a similar field of endeavor, Price discloses receiving an asynchronous image capture request from an additional requesting client application (Component B (hand tracking)) during the capture of the set of image (Hand tracking requests occur during a period when head tracking images are captured; figs. 7-9).
Claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 teaches receiving an asynchronous capture request. Price teaches receiving an asynchronous capture request during the capture of the set of images. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the undisclosed timing of the received asynchronous image capture request with a time during capture of the set of images to achieve the predictable result of capturing an image independent of a separate application.
Regarding claim 2, 9, 17, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 and Price, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 teach all the limitations of instant claims 2, 9, 16.
Regarding claim 4, 11, 18, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 and Price, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 teach all the limitations of instant claims 4, 11, 18.
Regarding claims 5, 12, 19, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 and Price, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4), however, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 fails to explicitly disclose the asynchronous frame capture in addition to the frame capture results in a second frame rate different than the first frame rate. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Price.
In a similar field of endeavor, Price discloses wherein the asynchronous frame capture in addition to the frame capture results in a second frame rate different than the first frame rate (fig. 8; The frame rate for head tracking is a slower frame rate than the frame rate for hand tracking.).
Claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 teaches requesting an asynchronous capture in addition to a set of frames. Price teaches requesting an asynchronous capture in addition to a set of frames wherein the resulting frame rate is different than the first frame rate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 by applying the technique of Price to achieve the predictable result of capturing an image independent of a separate application.
Regarding claim 6, 13, 20, claims 8, 11-12 of ’440 and Price, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 fail to disclose triggering a low power state when frame capture has ceased. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Price.
In a similar field of endeavor, Price discloses further comprising computer readable code to:
in accordance with a determination that the frame capture has ceased, trigger the camera to enter a low power state ([0079]; When not actively obtaining image data, the camera is placed in a low power state.).
Claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 teaches capturing images. Price teaches capturing images wherein a low power mode is triggered when capturing has ceased. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 by applying the technique of Price to achieve the predictable result of conserving power.
Claims 7, 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 8, 11, and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,284,440 in view of Price et al. (US 2019/0295213 A1) hereinafter referenced as Price further in view of Price et al. (US 2021/0400185 A1) hereinafter referenced as Price2.
Regarding claims 7, 14, claims 8, 11-12 of ‘440 and Price, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), however, the combination, fails to explicitly disclose the first frame rate is based on a sharpness metric for each of the plurality of requesting client applications. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Price2.
In a similar field of endeavor, Price2 discloses further comprising computer readable code to:
determine the first frame rate based on a sharpness metric for each of the plurality of requesting client applications (Motion thresholds used to adjust frame rates are selected based on different applications such as applications susceptible to motion blur; [0033]).
The combination teaches capturing images at a frame rate. Price2 teaches capturing images at a frame rate based on blur data for the image capture device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve the combination by applying the technique of Price2 to achieve the predictable result of avoiding motion blur as disclosed in Price2 ([0033]).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “…during the capture of the set of image, trigger an asynchronous frame capture…” should be changed to “…during the capture of the set of image frames, trigger an asynchronous frame capture…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 15 recites “…a controller communicably to the camera…” which should be changed to “…a controller communicably coupled to the camera…”
Claims 4, 11, and 18 objected to because of the following informalities: The limitation “…the frame capture rate…” should be changed to “…the first frame capture rate…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 18, they 18 recite that the asynchronous frame capture is triggered further in response to a motion rate of the electronic device. However, this is not supported in either of the prior-filed applications. Specifically, there is no mention of the asynchronous capture being triggered in response to a motion rate of the electronic device. Rather, the asynchronous capture is triggered in response to an asynchronous request (paragraph [0052] of the PG-PUB). The frame rate for the asynchronous capture is selected based on “the specifics of the asynchronous request” (which is never defined). There is no mention that the asynchronous capture is captured at a rate that is based on motion rate or that the asynchronous capture is triggered by anything other than an asynchronous request. Without any disclosure for this feature, it is unclear how this would be carried out. Specifically, it would seem that the point of the asynchronous capture is to bypass any frame rate restrictions in order to capture the image when it is requested. Therefore, it is unclear from the specification as originally filed how the asynchronous capture could additionally be triggered in response to the motion rate of the device.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, they recite the limitation "the frame capture" in the last line of each of claims 1, 8, and 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, it is unclear what “the frame capture” is referring to as a frame capture (singular) has not been mentioned prior to this. It is unclear whether “the frame capture” is referring to one image frame included in the “set of image frames” or an entirely different image frame separate from the “set of image frames”.
Regarding claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20, they also recite the limitation “the frame capture” and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claims 1, 8, and 15).
Regarding claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, they depend from one of claims 1, 8, and 15 and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claims 1, 8, and 15).
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) 1, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 2019/0295213 A1) hereinafter referenced as Price in view of Price et al. (US 2021/0400185 A1) hereinafter referenced as Price2.
Regarding claim 1, Price discloses
A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising computer readable code executable by one or more processors to:
receive image capture requests from a plurality of requesting client applications (Component A (head tracking), Component C (depth tracking)) of an electronic device ([0042]; figs. 5, 7-9);
capture a set of image frames at a first frame capture rate by an image capture device ([0057]; Capture requests correspond to captured frames)
in response to receiving an asynchronous image capture request from an additional requesting client application (Component B (hand tracking)) during the capture of the set of image (Hand tracking requests occur during a period when head tracking images are captured; figs. 7-9), trigger an asynchronous frame capture in addition to the frame capture (Frames are captured at points between two head tracking frames which would be considered “asynchronous”; figs. 7-9).
However, Price, fails to explicitly disclose the frame rate used for capturing is based on motion data for the image capture device satisfying a motion threshold. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Price2.
In a similar field of endeavor, Price2 discloses capture a set of image frames at a first frame capture rate by an image capture device based on motion data for the image capture device satisfying a motion threshold ([0033]; The capture rate is adjusted based on the motion being below a motion threshold (321; fig. 3). The capture rate may also be adjusted based on high IMU movement ([0044])).
Price teaches capturing images at a frame rate. Price2 teaches capturing images at a frame rate based on motion data for the image capture device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Price by applying the technique of Price2 to achieve the predictable result of avoiding motion blur as disclosed in Price2 ([0033]).
Regarding 4, Price and Price2, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Price2 discloses, wherein the frame capture rate is based on the image capture requests (Motion thresholds for adjusting capture rate are set based on application specific criteria; [0033]) and the motion rate of the electronic device (fig. 3; 320).
Price teaches capturing images at a frame rate. Price2 teaches capturing images at a frame rate based on motion data for the image capture device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Price by applying the technique of Price2 to achieve the predictable result of avoiding motion blur as disclosed in Price2 ([0033]).
Regarding claim 5, Price and Price2, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 4), in addition, Price discloses, wherein the asynchronous frame capture in addition to the frame capture results in a second frame rate different than the first frame rate (fig. 8; The frame rate for head tracking is a slower frame rate than the frame rate for hand tracking.).
Regarding claim 6, Price and Price2, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Price discloses, further comprising computer readable code to:
in accordance with a determination that the frame capture has ceased, trigger the camera to enter a low power state ([0079]; When not actively obtaining image data, the camera is placed in a low power state.).
Regarding claim 7, Price and Price2, the combination, discloses everything claimed as applied above (see claim 1), in addition, Price2 discloses, further comprising computer readable code to:
determine the first frame rate based on a sharpness metric for each of the plurality of requesting client applications (Motion thresholds used to adjust frame rates are selected based on different applications such as applications susceptible to motion blur; [0033]).
Price teaches capturing images at a frame rate. Price2 teaches capturing images at a frame rate based on blur data for the image capture device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Price by applying the technique of Price2 to achieve the predictable result of avoiding motion blur as disclosed in Price2 ([0033]).
Regarding claim 8, it recites similar limitations to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 1).
Regarding claim 11, it recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 12, it recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 13, it recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 6).
Regarding claim 14, it recites similar limitations to claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, Price discloses
A system comprising:
a camera;
a controller communicably to the camera and configured to:
receive image capture requests from a plurality of requesting client applications (Component A (head tracking), Component C (depth tracking)) of an electronic device ([0042]; figs. 5, 7-9);
capture a set of image frames at a first frame capture rate by an image capture device ([0057]; Capture requests correspond to captured frames)
in response to receiving an asynchronous image capture request from an additional requesting client application (Component B (hand tracking)) during the capture of the set of image (Hand tracking requests occur during a period when head tracking images are captured; figs. 7-9), trigger an asynchronous frame capture in addition to the frame capture (Frames are captured at points between two head tracking frames which would be considered “asynchronous”; figs. 7-9).
However, Price, fails to explicitly disclose the frame rate used for capturing is based on motion data for the image capture device satisfying a motion threshold. However, the examiner maintains that it was well known in the art to provide this, as taught by Price2.
In a similar field of endeavor, Price2 discloses capture a set of image frames at a first frame capture rate by an image capture device based on motion data for the image capture device satisfying a motion threshold ([0033]; The capture rate is adjusted based on the motion being below a motion threshold (321; fig. 3). The capture rate may also be adjusted based on high IMU movement ([0044])).
Price teaches capturing images at a frame rate. Price2 teaches capturing images at a frame rate based on motion data for the image capture device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve Price by applying the technique of Price2 to achieve the predictable result of avoiding motion blur as disclosed in Price2 ([0033]).
Regarding claim 18, it recites similar limitations to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 4).
Regarding claim 19, it recites similar limitations to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 5).
Regarding claim 20, it recites similar limitations to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons as stated above (see claim 6).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL M BERARDESCA whose telephone number is (571)270-3579. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 10-8, Fri 10-2.
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 at (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.
PAUL M. BERARDESCA
Examiner
Art Unit 2637
/PAUL M BERARDESCA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637 8/19/2026
Prosecution Insights