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 § 112
Claim 9 is 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 claim 9, this claim recites the phrase of “the output electrical signal” in lines 4, 6 and 10, respectively. It is unclear what exactly the claimed “output electrical signal” refers to. Claim 1 recites the phrase of “an output electrical signal” in lines 2, 4 and 6, respectively. How does “the output electrical signal” of claim 9 is related to “an output electrical signa” of claim 1? For example, does “the output electrical signal” of claim 9 refer to “an output electrical signal of a first optical sensor” of claim 1? Clarification is required.
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) 1-2, 9-10 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fu et al (US 2018/0288301 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fu et al shows in Fig.7 the following elements of applicant’s claim: a first detection step of detecting an output electrical signal of a first optical sensor within a first exposure duration (Step 704; first sensing signals are generated during a first exposure period); a second detection step of detecting an output electrical signal of a second optical sensor within a second exposure duration, which is different from the first exposure duration (Step 708; a second sensing signal is generated during a second exposure period); and a determination step of stopping detection when an output electrical signal obtained in any one of the detection steps is within a predetermined electrical signal range (in view of Step 710, a second sensing signal obtained in the second exposure period is considered to meet a predetermined threshold before being transmitted to a signal processing unit for generating a desired image. Furthermore, when the desired image is obtained by utilizing different exposure durations, it is considered that steps of determining [i.e. detecting] light brightness [i.e. intensity] are no longer needed). Regarding claim 10, Fu et al additionally discloses that an imaging sensing device is utilized in electronic devices.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 29-31 of Fu et al.
Regarding claim 9, as far as the claim is understood, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraphs 29-31 of Fu et al.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations therein are disclosed in paragraph 21 of Fu et al.
Regarding claims 14, the limitations there are disclosed in paragraph 16 of Fu et al.
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 and 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fu et al (US 2018/0288301 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the specific configuration and scheme utilized would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in view of meeting different design requirements and achieving the particular desired performance.
Regarding claims 15-17, although Fu et al does not specifically mention that the claimed method steps are utilized in a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor or a computer program product, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to encode a light brightness detection method of Fu et al into a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, a processor or a computer program product in view of the desire to perform an automatic repeatable execution.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8 and 11-12 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 4-8, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious a light brightness detection method comprising, in addition to the other recited features of the claim 1, the features of controlling a detection circuit, reading a voltage of a predetermined terminal of the detection circuit, exposing the predetermined optical sensor and reading a voltage of the predetermined terminal; and calculating a difference between the first voltage and the second as well as the claimed predetermined optical sensor and the predetermined exposure duration in the manner recited in claim 4. Regarding claim 11, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an electronic device comprising, in addition to the other recited features of claim 10, the details and functions of a first photodiode and a detection circuit in the manner recited in claim 11. Regarding claim 12, the prior art fails to disclose or make obvious an electronic device comprising, in addition to the other recited features of claim 10, the details and functions of a second photodiode and a detection circuit in the manner recited in claim 12.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN K PYO whose telephone number is (571)272-2445. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30 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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at 571-272-2328. 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.
/KEVIN K PYO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2878
