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 § 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) 1-2, 4-5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauvin et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0120650 (hereinafter Chauvin).
Consider claim 1, Chauvin teaches a computer-implemented method for operating a computer mouse comprising a microcontroller and an optical sensor (Figure 2, processor 210 and detection module 250. [0032], optical sensor) able to generate flashes along an underlying surface [0006], the method comprising steps for: calculating a tracking optical sensor flash rate ([0006], determine relative displacement and flash ), generating tracking flashes in order to identify relative displacement along an underlying surface [0006], calculating a surface optical sensor flash rate taking into account the tracking optical sensor flash rate ([0008], two different sets of optical data (e.g., a first set and a second set) are generated by the optical sensor, where the first set of optical data is used by the one or more processors for computing the relative displacement of the computer peripheral device along the surface, and where the second set of optical data is used by the one or more processors for classifying the surface. The first set of optical data and the second set of optical data can be generated at different times by a time-divisional multiplexing control schema), generating surface flashes between two tracking flashes in order to identify surface characteristics along the underlying surface ([0008] and [0116], at different times by a time-divisional multiplexing control schema and classifying the surface).
Chauvin’s [0116] and [0008] do not appear to specifically disclose a flash duration of surface characteristics flash being strictly less than a flash duration of tracking flash.
However, Chauvin teaches in [0095], for instance, real-time estimators of some or all surface “identity” values may be run at every frame or at every N frames of the image sensor (e.g., every 5 frames). Thus, if surface identify values run every N frames, a flash duration of surface characteristics flash being strictly less than a flash duration of tracking flash.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular flash duration as taught by Chauvin with the benefit that a real-time estimator can be a fast process and for the purpose of optimal tracking as suggested in [0095]. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art
Consider claim 2, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Chauvin teaches acquiring the light reflected [0009] by the underlying surface exclusively from the surface flashes reflection ([0008], two different sets of optical data (e.g., a first set and a second set) are generated by the optical sensor, where the first set of optical data is used by the one or more processors for computing the relative displacement of the computer peripheral device along the surface, and where the second set of optical data is used by the one or more processors for classifying the surface. The first set of optical data and the second set of optical data can be generated at different times by a time-divisional multiplexing control schema).
Consider claim 4, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Chauvin’s [0116] and [0008] do not appear to specifically disclose wherein the flash duration of surface characteristics twice less than the flash duration of tracking flash.
However, Chauvin teaches in [0095], for instance, real-time estimators of some or all surface “identity” values may be run at every frame or at every N frames of the image sensor. Thus, if surface identify values run every 2 frames, the flash duration of surface characteristics twice less than the flash duration of tracking flash.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular flash duration as taught by Chauvin with the benefit that a real-time estimator can be a fast process and for the purpose of optimal tracking as suggested in [0095]. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Consider claim 5, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Chauvin’s [0116] and [0008] do not appear to specifically disclose wherein the flash timing of surface characteristics flash is emitted approximately half the time between flashes of the tracking flashes.
However, Chauvin teaches in [0095], for instance, real-time estimators of some or all surface “identity” values may be run at every frame or at every N frames of the image sensor. Thus, if surface identify values run every 2 frames, the surface characteristics flash is emitted approximately half the time between flashes of the tracking flashes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a particular flash duration as taught by Chauvin with the benefit that a real-time estimator can be a fast process and for the purpose of optimal tracking as suggested in [0095]. In addition, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Furthermore, it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 195 USPQ 6 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
Consider claim 9, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Chauvin teaches a computer mouse comprising (Figure 1, 150): a housing (Housing shown in figure 1, 150), a communication module coupled to a host computer device (Figure 2, 240), an optical sensor configured to generate optical data via flashes corresponding to an underlying surface ([0006] and [0032], optical sensor), a microcontroller coupled to the optical sensor (Figure 2, 210 and 250), configured to implement the computer-implemented method of claim 1 ([0006], [0008] and [0116]).
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauvin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gu U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0124520 (hereinafter Gu).
Consider claim 3, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Chauvin does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the step for acquiring includes a filtering process configured to select the light reflected by the underlying surface resulting from the surface flashes reflection from among the other lights reflected by this surface.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Gu teaches an optical navigation device in figure 1 and further teaches wherein the step for acquiring includes a filtering process ([0036], ambient light and noise eliminated) configured to select the light reflected by the underlying surface resulting from the surface flashes reflection from among the other lights reflected by this surface [0036].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a filter process as taught by Gu in order to improve the identification accuracy as suggested in [0036].
Consider claim 8, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1. In addition, Chauvin teaches characteristics classification in [0008].
Chauvin does not appear to specifically disclose comparing the average light detected per pixel participating to a surface characteristics by: acquiring an image associated to the underlying surface, having a pixel array;- detecting an average light for each pixel and associate the average light value with a column size or number;- comparing the average column light to an internal reference, preferably a programmable reference or the average of the complete image.
However, Gu teaches comparing the average light detected per pixel participating to a surface characteristics by [0035]: acquiring an image associated to the underlying surface, having a pixel array ([0035], average intensity of the differential image. [0037], The image sensor 13 receives reflected light from the work surface S); detecting an average light for each pixel and associate the average light value with a column size or number [0035] comparing the average column light to an internal reference ([0035], average intensity of the differential image (image and thus include rows and columns) and predetermined threshold), preferably a programmable reference or the average of the complete image ([0035], predetermined threshold (and thus programmable reference)).
Therefore, it would been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to calculate average detected light as taught by Gu with the benefit that in order to increase the identification accuracy since different work surfaces may have different reflectance toward different light sources to degrade the intensity of reflected light thereby decreasing the average intensity and introducing error as suggested in [0036].
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chauvin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al. U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0229514 (hereinafter Huang).
Consider claim 6, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Chauvin does not appear to specifically wherein the time period between two tracking flashes is constant.
However, in a related field of endeavor, Huang teaches a mouse in figure 2a and further teaches wherein the time period between two tracking flashes is constant ([0043] and figure 4a, the low speed mode, the light source 101 turns on at the fixed lighting frequency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flash constantly as taught by Huang with the benefit that the processing unit may control the light source to enter different speed modes, e.g. a high speed mode, a middle speed mode or a low speed mode, according to the displacement calculated as suggested in [0040].
Consider claim 7, Chauvin teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Chauvin does not appear to specifically wherein the time period between two tracking flashes is variable.
However, Huang teaches wherein the time period between two tracking flashes is variable ([0043] and figure 4a, in the high speed mode the light source 101 turns on corresponding to 4 successive image frames and then turns off corresponding to 8 successive image frames).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to flash variably as taught by Huang with the benefit that the processing unit may control the light source to enter different speed modes, e.g. a high speed mode, a middle speed mode or a low speed mode, according to the displacement calculated as suggested in [0040].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7, Applicant argues that “Time-divisional multiplexing, in general, refers to generating different data sets at different times, but does not specify that surface flashes are generated between tracking flashes. The claim requires a specific interleaved arrangement where surface flashes occur in the intervals between tracking flashes-a configuration that Chauvin does not teach or suggest.”
Chauvin teaches in [0008], two different sets of optical data (e.g., a first set and a second set) are generated by the optical sensor, where the first set of optical data is used by the one or more processors for computing the relative displacement of the computer peripheral device along the surface, and where the second set of optical data is used by the one or more processors for classifying the surface. The first set of optical data and the second set of optical data can be generated at different times by a time-divisional multiplexing control schema. Thus, the second set of optical data should be in between first set of optical data in order to detect displacement during a plurality of times (e.g. during a plurality of frames). Consequently, these arguments have been considered buy they are not persuasive.
On page 7, Applicant argues that “the Examiner's reasoning conflates two fundamentally different parameters: frame frequency (how often surface identity values are computed) and flash duration (how long each individual flash lasts). Running an estimator every N frames relates to the frequency of analysis, not the temporal duration of individual flashes. The claim specifically requires that the flash duration of surface characteristics flash be strictly less than the flash duration of tracking flash-a parameter that Chauvin does not address.” The Office respectfully disagrees for the following reasons.
Chauvin teaches in [0095], for instance, real-time estimators of some or all surface “identity” values may be run at every frame or at every N frames of the image sensor (e.g., every 5 frames). Thus, if surface identify values run every N frames, a flash duration of surface characteristics flash being strictly less than a flash duration of tracking flash. For example, if flash duration of surface characteristics flash run one time every five frames and flash duration of tracking flash run five times during five frames, then one time is less than five times. In addition, [0095] suggests a short duration for estimators since it suggest a fast process. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. Consequently, these arguments have been considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO W FLORES whose telephone number is (571)272-5512. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7am-4pm, EST.
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, AMR A AWAD can be reached at (571)272-7764. 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.
/ROBERTO W FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2621
Prosecution Insights