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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/02/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12360933. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as shown by the following table (provided for illustrative purposes) that compares claim 1 of the instant application with claim 1 of the issued Patent.
Co-pending Application (#19/230154)
1.) A detection system, comprising: an optical mouse, configured to send out raw data acquired by the optical mouse and calculated data generated by the optical mouse using the raw data via a first communication interface included in the optical mouse, wherein the raw data comprises a sequence of image frames representing surface features and pixel intensity values captured by the optical mouse;
and a processor, configured to periodically transmit a first request for the calculated data and to transmit, upon a specific trigger condition or time intervals, a second request for the raw data to the first communication interface of the optical mouse via a second communication interface included in the processor to cause the optical mouse to transmit the calculated data in response to the first request and to transmit the raw data after receiving the second request, wherein the raw data is configured for both calculating displacement of the optical mouse with respect to a working surface as the calculated data, and performing machine learning by the processor.
3. The detection system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the first request and the second request are standard communication protocols conforming to SPI standard or I2C standard, or self-defined protocols.
Claim 1, Issued Patent No. 12360933
1. ) A detection system, comprising: a detection device, configured to send out, via a first communication interface included in the detection device, calculated data generated by the detection device, and send out, via the first communication interface included in the same detection device, raw data acquired by an optical sensor of the same detection device;
and a post processor, configured to transmit a first request, at a predetermined frequency, and a second request to the first communication interface of the detection device via a second communication interface included in the post processor to cause the detection device to transmit the calculated data in response to the first request and to transmit the raw data always in a next polling period of the second request upon the same detection device receiving the second request from the post processor,
wherein both the first communication interface and the second communication interface are serial peripheral interface (SPI) communication interfaces or inter-integrated circuit (I2C) communication interfaces, the detection device is an optical mouse, and the raw data is configured for both calculating displacement of the detection device with respect to a working surface on which the detection device is operated, as the calculated data, and performing machine learning by the post processor using the raw data sent upon the detection device being lifted up from the working surface.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the instant application claim scope is a genus to the issued Patent’s species scope, the instant application incorporating material already present in the issued Patent.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JANG (USPGPUB No. 2021/0217406 A1) in view of Kale et al. (USPGPUB No. 2021/0142146 A1, hereinafter referred to as Kale) and further in view of Hillman (USPGPUB No. 2018/0246586 A1).
Referring to claim 1, Jang discloses a detection system {“electronic device 101 should perform a function [upon detection]”, see Fig. 1 [0042]}, comprising:
an optical device {“may be executed at one or more of the external electronic devices 102, 104, or 108.”, see Fig. 1 [0042]}, configured to send out raw data acquired by the optical device {“may receive a user’s voice input”, see Fig. 1b [0048]} and calculated data generated by {“convert the [raw data] voice input into [calculated] text data”, see Fig. 1b [0048]} the optical device using the raw data via a first communication interface included in the optical device {“through a [first communication interface] communication network”, see Fig. 1b [0048]};
and a processor {“artificial intelligence system”, see Fig. 1b [0050]}, configured to periodically transmit a first request for the calculated data {“receiving the request…”, see Fig. 1b [0042], [0050]} and to transmit, upon a specific trigger condition {“according to the [trigger condition] path rule”, see Fig. 1D, [0064], 2nd sentence} or time intervals {Examiner’s interpretation: the use of the “or” in this dependent claim treated as Markush claim, thus the reference disclosing at least one limitation to teach the claim.} a second request for the raw data {“the processor 1500 may make a [second] request”, see Fig. 1b [0125]} to the first communication interface of the optical device via a second communication interface “make a request for an additional input to the user” via the second communication interface as claimed, see Fig. 1b [0125]} included in the processor to cause the optical device to transmit the calculated data in response to the first request {“according to the user input”, see Figs. 1a, 2, or 3 [0235]} and to transmit the raw data after receiving the second request {“according to the user input or the voice input under the control of the”, see Figs. 2 and 4 [0235]};
JANG does not appear to explicitly disclose an optical device, configured to send out raw data acquired by the optical device and calculated data generated by the optical device using the raw data via a first communication interface included in the optical device, wherein the raw data comprises a sequence of image frames representing surface features and pixel intensity values captured by the optical device;
wherein the raw data is configured for both calculating displacement of the optical mouse with respect to a working surface as the calculated data, and performing machine learning by the processor.
Furthermore, Kale discloses an optical device an optical device, configured to send out {detection device “image sensing device 201”, see Fig. 7 and 13, [0113]} raw data acquired by the optical device {raw data “the images generated in the image sensing device (201)”, [0142] first sentence} and calculated data generated by the optical device using the raw data via a first communication interface included in the optical device {first communication interface “communication interface 206”, see Fig. 7, [0115}, wherein the raw data comprises a sequence of image frames {“written in a cyclic way [on the next sequence] into the neuron input region 285, automatically buffered in the buffer 252”, [0215], 3rd sentence} representing surface features and pixel intensity values captured by the optical device {pixel intensity values “perform warping detection, warping correction, color correction, deblurring, or noise reduction”, see Figs. 7 and 20, [0246], last sentence};
wherein the raw data is configured for both calculating displacement {“accelerometers and/or gyroscope sensors measuring [calculating displacement] the motions of some components of the vehicle”, see Figs. 7 and 9 [0146], last two sentences of the optical device with respect to a working surface as the calculated data {“detect the conditions of the [working surfaces] surroundings of the vehicle… on [or also on] a roadway”, see Fig. 1, [0004], 1st sentence}, and performing machine learning by the processor {“the corresponding inference result data (223) to the server (219) to facilitate the training of the ANN”, see Fig. 8, [0130] last sentence; machine learning example “supervised machine learning” (see Fig. 10, [0152]) or unsupervised (see Fig. 11 [0159] 1st sentence)}.
JANG and Kale are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, portable devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of JANG and Kale before him or her, to modify Jang’s detection device incorporating Kale’s “image sensing device 201” and respective ANN neural network functionality (see Fig. 7 and 13, [0113]).
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to incorporate ANN may be trained using a supervised method where the parameters in the ANN are adjusted to minimize or reduce the error between known outputs resulted from respective inputs and computed outputs generated from applying the inputs to the ANN. Examples of supervised learning/training methods include reinforcement learning, and learning with error correction (Kale [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Kale with JANG to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
Neither JANG nor Kale appears to explicitly disclose wherein the optical device is an optical mouse.
Furthermore, Hillman discloses wherein the optical device is an optical mouse (“data captured by the optical mouse or position-monitoring device”, see Figs. 1 and 2 [0046], 2nd sentence).
JANG/Kale and Hillman are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, portable devices.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of JANG and Kale before him or her, to modify Jang/Kale’s device incorporating Hillman’s “image processing such as optical flow sensors” (see Figs. 1 or 2, [0046], 2nd sentence).
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to implementing a computer integrated cursor manipulation system that analyzes users body movement by movement of a support and transmits the movement to an electronic device, to provide pointing information to a computer or video game input, without motor movement that is hazardous to a user's health (Hillman [0012]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hillman with JANG/Kale to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim(s).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and JANG discloses wherein the processor and the optical mouse are arranged in the same equipment {“artificial intelligence system client of the electronic device 101… may be connected to an artificial intelligence server”, see Figs. 1a, 2, 3, and 4 [0234]} or respectively arranged in different equipment {Examiner’s interpretation: the use of the “or” in this dependent claim treated as Markush claim, thus the reference disclosing at least one limitation to teach the claim.}.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and JANG discloses wherein the first request and the second request are standard communication protocols {Examiner’s note: the “or” recitation renders this dependent claim as a Markush claim, thus the reference must teach at least one element to address this claim.} conforming to SPI standard or I2C standard {“communicate signals (e.g., commands or data) therebetween” as appropriate for SPI standard communication, see Fig. 1 [0041]}, or self-defined protocols.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Kale discloses wherein the processor is configured to use the raw data in training or executing a machine learning model, which is adapted for color detection {pixel intensity values “perform warping detection, warping correction, color correction, deblurring, or noise reduction”, see Figs. 7 and 20, [0246], last sentence}, behavior detection {“element of time in the behavior [detection] or of SNN neurons makes an SNN suitable for processing spatiotemporal data”, [0013], last sentence} or anomaly detection of operations of the optical mouse {Examiner’s note: the “or” recitation renders this dependent claim as a Markush claim, thus the reference must teach at least one element to address this claim.}.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Kale discloses wherein the raw data is transmitted by the optical mouse in a next polling period {“written in a cyclic way [on the next polling period] into the neuron input region 285, automatically buffered in the buffer 252”, [0215], 3rd sentence} of receiving the second request {“generated directly by the sensors (e.g., 209) without processing [of the same detection device]”, [0215] 1st sentence by {“the ADAS (205) can request the sensing device (201) to transmit”, [0126] 1st sentence}.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and Hillman discloses wherein the specific trigger condition comprises the optical mouse being lifted up from the working surface {“the handling of a mouse that is lifted and put back on a surface”, see Fig. 1 [0007], 1st sentence}, and in the next polling period {“[polling periods] Steps 110 and 115 could be repeated several times to detect subtle movement of the support, and movement and velocity recorded. In step 120 a processor determines the trends of the optical signals”, see Fig. 5, [0057]}, the optical mouse is configured to transmit only the raw data {“sending the raw movement data to the computer 2 for processing to determine cursor input”, see Fig. 3, [0044], last three sentences}.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and Kale discloses wherein in the next polling period, the optical mouse is configured to transmit both the raw data {“written in a cyclic way [on the next polling period] into the neuron input region 285, automatically buffered in the buffer 252”, [0215], 3rd sentence} and the calculated data {“[displaced] object recognition or classification in the sensing device 201 and/or in the ADAS 205 encounters unknowns, difficulties,”, [0126] 1st sentence}.
Referring to claim 8-15 are system claims reciting claim functionality corresponding to the system claim of claims 1-7, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-7 recited above.
Referring to claim 16-20 are system claims reciting claim functionality corresponding to the system claim of claims 1-7, respectively, thereby rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-7 recited above, inter alia, as per claim 18 further discloses wherein the first communication interface is further configured to read the part of the stored raw data {“sending the raw movement data to the computer 2 for processing to determine cursor input”, see Fig. 3, [0044], last three sentences} from the memory in response to the multiple first requests {“some trackpad drivers support tap zones, regions where a tap will execute a function” ([0009], last two sentences) each region launching/executing a request/API call to the operating system (“output to the display on the operating system”, [0007], 1st sentence)}, and the predetermined frequency is a fixed frequency {“the camera 15 requires a minimum [fixed frequency] frame rate for continuity of the movement of the pattern 21”, [0047], last three sentences}.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references are indicative the current state of the art regarding claim 1’s “detection system”, “raw data”, or “first communication interface”: limitation recited in claim 1 above: US 20260228175 A1, US 20230003838 A1, US 20220066456 A1, US 20210326277 A1, US 10417156 B2, US 10102177 B2, and US 20180074981 A1.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER A. BARTELS whose telephone number is (571)270-3182. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00a-5:30pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.A.B./
Examiner
Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights