`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`90/014,056
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`12/15/2017
`
`Image Processing Technologies LLC
`75 Montebello Road
`Suffern, NY 10901
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`6959293
`
`1361
`
`BANANKHAH, MAJID A
`
`ART UNIT
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`03/26/2018
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0001
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0001
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

` UNITED STATES PATENTAND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`Corarnissioner for Patents
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1440
`wunUSPTO.gow
`
`DO NOT USE IN PALM PRINTER
`
`(THIRD PARTY REQUESTER'S CORRESPONDENCEADDRESS)
`
`MARC PENSABENE
`O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`7 TIMES SQUARE
`NEW YORK, NY 10036
`
`EX PARTE REEXAMINATION COMMUNICATION TRANSMITTAL FORM
`
`REEXAMINATION CONTROL NO. 90/014,056.
`
`PATENT NO. ..
`
`ART UNIT 3992.
`
`Enclosed is a copy of the latest communication from the United States Patent and Trademark
`Office in the above identified ex parte reexamination proceeding (37 CFR 1.550(f)).
`
`Wherethis copy is supplied after the reply by requester, 37 CFR 1.535, orthe timeforfiling a
`reply has passed, no submission on behalf of the ex parte reexamination requester will be
`acknowledgedor considered (37 CFR 1.550(g)).
`
`PTOL-465 (Rev.07-04)
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0002
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0002
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`10. CT Other: cc: Requester (if third party
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Control No.
`90/014,056
`
`Examiner
`MAJID A. BANANKHAH
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`6959293
`
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`
`AIA (First Inventor to
`File) Status
`No
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`
`aX Responsive to the communication(s)filed on 07/03/2078 .
`LIA declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`b.[_] This action is made FINAL.
`
`c._] A statement under 37 CFR 1.530 has not been received from the patent owner.
`
`A shortened statutory period for response to this action is set to expire 2 month(s) from the mailing date ofthis letter.
`Failure to respond within the period for response will result in termination of the proceeding and issuance of an ex parte reexamination
`certificate in accordancewith this action. 37 CFR 1.550(d). EXTENSIONS OF TIME ARE GOVERNED BY 37 CFR 1.550(c).
`If the period for response specified aboveis less than thirty (80) days, a response within the statutory minimum ofthirty (30) days
`will be considered timely.
`
`Part]
`
`THE FOLLOWING ATTACHMENT(S) ARE PART OF THIS ACTION:
`
`1.
`2.
`
`CL] Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PTO-892.
`[_]
`Information Disclosure Statement, PTO/SB/08.
`
`CL]
`3.
`4.0
`
`Interview Summary, PTO-474.
`.
`
`OOOUOWODORR
`
`Part Il
`
`ta.
`
`1b.
`
`2.
`
`3 4 5
`
`6 7 8
`
`.
`
`SUMMARY OF ACTION
`
`Claims 7 are subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims 2-29 are not subject to reexamination.
`
`Claims ____—s have been canceled in the present reexamination proceeding.
`
`Claims sare patentable and/or confirmed.
`
`Claims 7 are rejected.
`
`Claims ___s are objectedto.
`
`The drawings, filedon__—_—s are acceptable.
`The proposed drawing correction, filed on
`
`has been (7a) C approved (7b)C] disapproved.
`
`Acknowledgment is made ofthe priority claim under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`
`[1 Some* c)[ None
`a) CAI b)
`1 £] beenreceived.
`
`2 (1 not been received.
`
`of the certified copies have
`
`3 LJ beenfiled in Application No.
`4 CL] beenfiled in reexamination Control No.
`5 CL] been received by the International Bureau in PCT application No.
`
`* See the attached detailed Office action foralist of the certified copies not received.
`9. L] Since the proceeding appears to be in condition for issuance of an ex parte reexamination certificate except for formal
`matters, prosecution as to the merits is closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D.
`11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`requester)
`
`PTOL-466 (Rev. 08-13)
`
`Office Action in Ex Parte Reexamination
`
`Part of Paper No. 20180216
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0003
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0003
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED EX PARTE REEXAMINATION OFFICE ACTION
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`This first Office action on the merit is in response to the ex parte Request (12/15/2017)
`
`for reexamination of US 6,959,293 patent to Pirim (hereafter “*293”’) by a third party requester.
`
`A. Status of Claims
`
`Requested claim | is rejected.
`
`B. References Cited in this Office Action
`
`Requested claim 1 of the ‘293 patent is obvious under 35 USC 103, in light of the
`
`following references.
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`International Patent Publication WO 99/36893 (“Prim PCX”’), published July 22,
`
`Sicael Howard 9, el al. “PASM: A Partitionable SIMD/MIMD Avetemfor
`
`Irnage Processing and Pattern: Recognition,” TREE Transactions on Computers,
`Yol C-3G, No. 12 December 19813 (Siegel)
`U.S. Patent No. 6,118,895 (“Hirota’’), filed March 5, 1996, issued September 12,
`2000
`
`C. Reexam Prosecution History
`
`In the order granting ex parte reexamination dated 01/26/2018, it was agreed that the
`
`references identified above alone or in combination,raises a substantial new question of
`
`patentability against claim 1 of the ‘293 patent. The following is the summary ofthe rejection of
`
`the requested claim in view ofthe prior art cited.
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0004
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0004
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`I. CLAIM INTERPRETATION
`
`A. Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
`
`Page 3
`
`During reexamination, claims are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
`
`with the specification andlimitations in the specification are not read into the claims. See MPEP
`
`§2258(1)(G). Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, words of the claim must be given their
`
`plain meaning, unless such meaningis inconsistent with the specification. See MPEP §2111.01
`
`(1). It is further noted it is improper to import claim limitations from the specification,1.e., a
`
`particular embodiment appearing in the written description maynotbe read into a claim when
`
`the claim language is broader than the embodiment. See MPEP §2111.01 dD).
`
`B.Interpretation Under 35 U.S.C. §112 (6" q)
`
`An exception to the prohibition of reading limitations from the specification into the
`
`claims is when the claimed feature is written as a means-plus-function or a step-plus-function.
`
`See 35 U.S.C. §112(6th {) and MPEP §2181-2183. As noted in MPEP §2181, a three prongtest
`
`is used to determine the scope of a means-plus-function or step-plus-function limitation in a
`
`claim:
`
`(A)_the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute
`for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term
`having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function
`
`(B)_the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional
`language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for’) or
`another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"
`
`(C)—the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
`sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0005
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0005
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`
`Examiners find herein that claim 1 contains a functional limitation of means or means-
`
`type language that invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 (6th {).
`
`at least two histogram calculation units...
`
`A first means-plus-function phrase is recited in claim 1 whichrecites “‘at least two
`
`histogram calculation units...” or hereinafter FL #1. Examiners determine herein that FL #1
`
`meets the three prong test and thus will be interpreted as a means-plus-function limitation under
`
`35 U.S.C. §112(6th 4) for this claim.
`
`The Examiners find that FL #1 in claim 1 recites:
`
`at least two histogram calculation units for the treatmentof the at least one parameter,
`
`the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative of
`
`the parameteras a function of a validation signal and to determine by classification a binary
`
`classification signal resulting from a comparisonof the parameter and a selection criterion C,
`
`wherein the classification signal is sent to the time coincidences bus, and wherein the validation
`
`signal is produced from time coincidences signals from the time coincidence bus so that the
`
`calculation of the histogram dependson the classification signals carried by the time
`
`coincidence bus....
`
`(a) 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (A)
`
`FL #1 meets invocation prong (A) because "means... for" type languageisrecited.
`
`Examinersfirst find that “histogram calculation unit” is a generic placeholder or nonce term
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0006
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0006
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`
`equivalent to “means” because the term “unit” does not convey any particular structure and
`
`further “histogram calculation” only implies further function without any further structure.
`
`Examiners have further reviewedthe prior art of record andfind that, to one of ordinary skill in
`
`this particular art, “histogram calculation unit” does not denote a particular structure (either
`
`expressly or inherently).
`
`Accordingly, Examiners find nothing in the specification, prosecution history or the prior
`
`art to construe “histogram calculation unit” in FL #1 as the nameofa sufficiently definite
`
`structure for performing the functions recited in FL #1 so as to take the overall claim limitation
`
`out of the ambit of §112(6th ¥). See Williamson y. Citrix Online, L.L.C., 115 USPQ2d 1105,
`
`1112 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
`
`In light of the above, the Examiners concludethat the term “histogram calculation unit”
`
`is a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated therewith. Because “histogram
`
`calculation unit” is merely a generic placeholder having no specific structure associated
`
`therewith, the Examiners conclude that FL #1 meets invocation Prong (A).
`
`(b) 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (B)
`
`FL #1 meets invocation prong (B) becauseit recites the function to “to form a histogram
`
`representative of the parameter as a function of a validation signal and to determine by
`
`classification a binary classification signal resulting from a comparison of the parameter and a
`
`selection criterion C, wherein the classification signal is sent to the time coincidences bus, and
`
`wherein the validation signal is produced from time coincidencessignals from the time
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0007
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0007
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`
`coincidence busso that the calculation of the histogram dependson the classification signals
`
`carried by the time coincidence bus.”
`
`(c) 3-Prong Analysis: Prong (C)
`
`FL #1 meets invocation prong (C) because FL #1 doesnotrecite sufficient structure for
`
`performing the claimed function. Based upon a review of claim |, Examiners find that FL #1
`
`recites very little (if any) structure for performing the function as set forth of FL #1.
`
`In view of the Examiners findings above that FL #1 in claim | meets invocation prongs
`
`(A)-(C), the Examiners conclude FL #1, each of the at least two histogram calculation units, in
`
`claim | invokes interpretation under 35 U.S.C. §112 (6th {).
`
`(d) Corresponding Structures
`
`After a claimed phrase has been shownto invoke 35 U.S.C. §112 (6th {), as found above,
`
`the next step is to determine the corresponding structure or material as described in the
`
`specification for performing the recited function. See MPEP §2181(II).
`
`Based upon a review of the specification, the Examiners find that the corresponding
`
`structures are those structures necessary to perform the functions cited above. Specifically, the
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0008
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0008
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`1
`
`Page 7
`
`poGnesi
`
`107
`
`108
`
`|
`
`|
`
`i
`BATA
`vr
`{
`|
`Pk
`ome MOK Py OF
`TENT]
`
`
`
`i
`INIT
`MEMORY
`|_RMAX|
`
`
`
`i _WRITE+]wR ggg|Wauoarion ||POSRMAX]
`
`
`| COUNTER
`[SHU|
`ApRESS ooa
`|
`.
`1028:
`
`|
`1
`pepper
`PU408
`:
`INIT
`PEEELT Ot r
`P
`zt a
`1
`3
`N EEE||
`
`DATA(A)hemmed 101
`een ET
`Wer"
`Ane.
`Sacha
`tina |
`1Dt¢
`:
`
`“s
`
`‘293 Patent FIG. 3
`
`Examiners find that the corresponding structures for calculating a histogram are generally shown
`
`in FIG. 1, reprinted above, which is a histogram calculation unit | as part of a processing chip
`
`(shownin ‘293 Patent FIG. 32). The structures for determining “by classification a binary
`
`classification signal resulting from a comparison of the parameter and a selection criterion C,
`
`wherein the classification signal is sent to the time coincidencesbus” is the classifier 101
`
`comprising a register/memory 101r and a comparator which is connectedto the time
`
`coincidences bus 111 (See ‘293 Patentcol. 9, lines 28-37). The structures for producing “a
`
`validation signal” from the “time coincidencessignals from the time coincidences bus” is the
`
`time coincidences unit 102 shown in FIG. 22 of the ‘293 Patent comprisingat least a register
`
`102r and a comparator whichoutputs the validation signal (See ‘293 Patent col. 9, lines 42-50,
`
`col. 10, lines 53-57 and col. 16, line 66 to col. 17, line 8). Finally, the structures for calculation
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0009
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0009
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`
`of the histogram depending “on the classification signals carried by the time coincidences bus”
`
`are the incrementation enabling unit 107 comprising a controlled adder (See ‘293 Patent col. 9,
`
`lines 19-21) and the test unit 103 and analysis output register 104 which receives the data from
`
`the memory and the output from the unit 107 to calculate the histogram (See ‘293 Patent col. 9,
`
`line 52 to col. 10, line 31).
`
`In view of these findings, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. §112 (6th 4), FL #1, each ofthe at least
`
`two histogram calculation units in claim | will be limited to these noted corresponding structures
`
`and equivalents thereof.
`
`Il. THE REJECTIONS
`
`A. Summary of Rejections
`
`The following is the summary of the ground ofrejections raised in the Request:
`
`Ground#1. Requested claim | is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pirim PCT in
`view ofSiegel.
`
`Ground#2. Requested claim | is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pirim PCT in
`view of Hirota.
`
`Ground#3. Requested claim | is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hirota.
`
`B. Claim Rejections
`
`1. Relevant Statutes - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which formsthe basis for all
`
`obviousnessrejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained thoughthe inventionis not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 ofthistitle, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented andthe prior art are
`such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was madeto a person
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0010
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0010
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 9
`
`having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the
`manner in which the invention was made.
`
`2. The factual inquiries
`
`The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459
`
`(1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness underpre-
`
`AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
`
`FwNP
`
`Determining the scope and contents of the priorart.
`Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claimsatissue.
`Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
`Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness
`or nonobviousness.
`
`C. Detail Analysis
`
`a. Ground #1
`
`Ground#1. Requested claim | is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pirim PCT in view of
`Siegel.
`
`1.
`
`RE: Claim 1
`
`The following is the individual elements of claim 1.
`
`[1 Pre.]: A visual perception processor for automatically detecting an event occurring in a
`multidimensional space(i, j) evolving over time with respect to at least one digitized
`parameterin the form of a digital signal on a data bus, said digital signal being in the form
`of a succession ajjr of binary numbersassociated with synchronization signals enabling to
`define a given instant (T) of the multidimensional space andtheposition(i, j) in this space,
`the visual perception processor comprising:
`
`Pirim PCT processes a frame of pixels, each pixel is addressed by row and column(Le.,
`
`the claimed(i, j) multidimensional space). See Pirim PCT at 11 states; "Signal S(PD) represents
`
`signal S composed of pixels PI." Id. He also explain that each video frame comprises horizontal
`
`scanned lines, each including; "a succession of pixels or image points PI, e.g., a1, a1,2, and a;3
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0011
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0011
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`
`for line 1, 1.."); See also Fig. 1 in Pirim PCT, ande.g., at 43, also Pirim PCTat 16, description of
`
`Fig. 5.
`
`A synchronization signal is used to define a given time and location in the succession of
`
`frames. See Pirim PCT at 11, second full paragraph after the first partial paragraph.
`
`[1A]: the data bus; [1B]: a control unit
`
`Pirim PCX discloses a data bus. See Pirim PCT and description of Figs. 11-16. See also
`
`Figs. 2, 11 and 12). Pirim PCT also control unit and discloses Controller 42 is in communication
`
`with data bus 23, which allows controller 42 to run a program to control. Pirim PCT at 38, Fig.
`
`12.
`
`[1C]: a time coincidences bus carrying at least a time coincidence signal;
`Pirim PCX discloses a time coincidence busthat carries the output of each of the
`
`classifiers to the coincidence unit, which includeslogic for creating the histogram validation
`
`signals. See Pirim PCT at 28, also Fig. 14.
`
`[1D]: and at least two histogram calculation units for the treatment of the at least one
`parameter,
`
`Pirim PCT discloses multiple histogram formation and processing units. Pirim PCT at
`
`Fig. 12, elements 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29; Id. at 25-26. In the example of Figure 12, each of
`
`the six-histogram units is shown to process a parameter (SR, V, VL, DI, x(m)1). Pirim PCTat
`
`25.
`
`[1E]: the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative
`of the parameteras a function of a validation signal-
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0012
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0012
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`
`Pirim PCT discloses that the histogram units shown in Figure 12 form a histogram of
`
`each parameter as a function of a validation signal. See Pirim PCTat 28, and Fig. 12. Pirrm PCT
`
`also discloses that in some configurations, parameters, such as the x-position of a pixel, may be
`
`processed by multiple histogram units simultaneously. See Pirim PCTat 37.
`
`To the extent that the PO arguesthat the portion cited at 37 in Pirim PCT,fails to disclose
`
`two histogram calculation units treating the same parameter because the axes are rotated and,
`
`therefore, not be the same parameter, this deficiency is remedied by Siegel.
`
`Siegel teaches achieving “real-time” processing of an image by using multiple identical
`
`processors (called “PEs”’) in parallel to each process and form a histogram of the same
`
`parameter. See Siegel at 934, Abs., and 944, L. column.
`
`Reasons to Combine Pirim PCT with Siegel
`
`Pirim PCT discloses image processing andin particular is aimed at achieving “real-time”
`
`processing for “robot (machine) vision” purpose. Figure 12 of Pirim PCT already uses six
`
`histogram unit to process various parameters, and the system would only run faster with
`
`additional histogram units to increase the processing speed. As describe above, Siegel teaches
`
`processing an image using multiple identical processors in parallel to each process and form a
`
`histogram of the same parameterin “real time”.
`
`Therefore, it would have been obviousfor a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`(“POSITA”) to combinereal time image processing of Pirim PCT with image processing using
`
`multiple identical processors of Siegel for the benefit of increasing the processing speed. For
`
`example, a POSITA would considerit obvious to add an additional element 28a adjacent and
`
`similar to element 28 in Figure 12 in Pirtm PCT to process x-position data for the pixels.
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0013
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0013
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`
`Elements 28 and 28a would be separate histogram units and would be processing the same
`
`parameter (x-position) for different segments of pixels, thereby increasing efficiency by
`
`increasing the processing speed. Alternatively, a POSITA would have considered it obvious to
`
`simply use two or more copies of the system in Figure 12, combined with the control architecture
`
`of Siegel, to form two or more histograms of each parameter.
`
`Additionally, incorporating Siegel’s parallel processing technique into Pirim PCT’s
`
`image processing system constitutes applying a known technique to a known device ready for
`
`improvementto yield predictable results. The results (faster processing speed) would have been
`
`predictable because adding additional histogram units would allow division of labor for
`
`processing of each parameter, and such faster processing speedis the stated benefit provided by
`
`Siegel. The combination simply requires combining prior art elements (the histogram unit system
`
`of Pirim PCT with Siegel’s idea of using two histogram units to treat the same parameter)
`
`according to known methods(the circuitry described in Pirim PCT)to yield predictable results
`
`(processing of an image).
`
`[1F]: and to determine byclassification a binary classification signal resulting from a
`comparison of the parameteranda selection criterion C, wherein the classification signalis
`sent to the time coincidences bus, and wherein the validation signal is produced from time
`coincidences signals from the time coincidence busso that the calculation of the histogram
`dependsontheclassification signals carried by the time coincidence bus.
`
`See Claim Interpretation Section above wherein this limitation, FL #1, is interpreted
`
`under 35 U.S.C. §112 (6). Thus, see Fig. 14 of the Pirim PCT with Fig. 12 reveals that the
`
`two disclosures are identical with respect to the abovelimitation,i.e., the structures shown in
`
`FIG. 14 of Pirim discloses on the corresponding structures for FL #1.
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0014
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0014
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`
`
`
` 3i ra
` Shinn
`SibNTodbee:
`
`3
`=
`:
`=
`%
`.
`$
`
`
`s
`3
`3
`By
`
`yd
`<
`¥
`SAAS
`ce:
`
`2
`TREE bene
`Seoget?
`5
`Reeenignnent:
`
`
`*
`
`Foe, SH
`
`FHS. 3
`
`Figure 14 of Pi rim PCX disclosesclassifier 25b for comparing parameter data (V) to a
`
`selection criterion C, whichis stored in “register 106 that enables the classification criteria to be
`
`set by the user, or by a separate computer program.” Pirim PCT at 27-28. The binary output of
`
`classifier 25b proceeds to a time coincidence bus 23, which also carries the output of other
`
`classifiers in the system. Id. at 28. Last para.
`
`b. Ground #2
`
`Ground#1. Requested claim | is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Pirim PCT in view of
`Hirota.
`
`1.
`
`RE: Claim 1
`
`The following is the individual elements of claim 1.
`
`Asexplained abovein the rejection of claims over Pirim PCT in view of Siegel, Pirim
`
`PCTdiscloses limitations [1 Pre.] - [1d], [1f] in claim 1.
`
`IPT Ex-2005,p. 0015
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0015
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`
`[1E]: the histogram calculation units being configured to form a histogram representative
`of the parameteras a function of a validation signal
`
`Asexplained above Pirim PCTdiscloses “the histogram calculation units being
`
`configured to form a histogram” of parameters “as a function ofa validation signal.” To the
`
`extent that the PO argues that the portion cited at 37 in Pirim PCT,fails to disclose two
`
`histogram calculation units treating the same parameter because the axesare rotated and,
`
`therefore, not be the same parameter, this deficiency is remedied by Hirota.
`
`Hirota discloses two histogram calculation units as Elements 202 and 204 in Figure 13.
`
`32
`
`2
`:
`
`SOOANY
`3
`OS
`Se
`=
`<
`
`:
`
`4
`
`BEES
`
`Sag SoNue
`
`7
`
` ‘ss: :
`
`onion
`
`y 2
`
`8
`
`:
`
`retinitis
`
`Hirota at Certificate of correction, Fig. 13. These two histogram units 202 and 204 both
`
`process the same parameter.....color. Id., at 7:24-28. In other words, both histogram units
`
`generate histogramsof color distribution for the pixels in the image. Hirota then discloses
`
`comparing these two histograms to perform pattern recognition (1.e., to determine the type of
`
`document being scanned). Hirota at 17:54-56 (“In the embodiments described above,a full color
`
`documentor a black-and-white documentis selected automatically according to histograms on
`
`value signals”), 10:4-44.
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0016
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0016
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Reasons to Combine Pirim PCT with Hirota
`
`Page 15
`
`It would have been obvious for a POSITA to modify Pirim PCT in view of Hirota to
`
`provide two or more histogram units processing the same parameter for the purpose of
`
`recognizing pattern or, or detecting an event. For example, a POSITA would consider it obvious
`
`to add an additional element 204a adjacent and similar to element 204 in Figure 13 to process
`
`video signal (or luminance) data for the pixels. Elements 204 and 204a would be separate
`
`histogram units and would be processing the same parameter (video signal or luminance) for
`
`pixels. Alternatively, a POSITA would have considered it obvious to simply use two or more
`
`copies of the system in Figure 13 to form two or more histograms of each parameter. Each
`
`Figure 13 system would processthe pixels, as described in Pirim PCT.In yet anotheralternative,
`
`a POSITA would have considered it obvious to simply configure two ofthe existing histogram
`
`calculation units of Pirim PCTto treat the same parameter.
`
`Additionally, A POSITA would have recognized that the results of this modification, L.e.,
`
`having two histogram units process the same parameter were predictable, because Hirota already
`
`explains howthe use of two histogram units treating the same parameter can be used for
`
`recognizing patterns, or “detecting an event” as recited by Claim 1. Hirota at 17:54-56, 10:4-44.
`
`For the samereasons, the combination is also obvious becauseit constitutes a simple substitution
`
`of one knownelement(a histogram unit treating the same parameter) for another (a histogram
`
`unit treating a different parameter) to obtain predictable results (processing of the image).
`
`Moreover, Pirim PCT explainsthat it relies on a “generic image processing system.” Id.,
`
`at 1 (emphasis added). Being “generic,” Pirim PCX’s image processing system can be
`
`programmedfor any numberof possible applications. Incorporating the idea of allowing a
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0017
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0017
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 16
`
`second histogram unit to process the same parameter as another histogram unit, as described in
`
`Hirota, would increase the flexibility of Pirim PCX’s generic image processing system and
`
`enable it to be even more powerful for processing imagesin other applications. For example, it
`
`would enable Pirim PCT to be able to detect whether a piece of paperis color or black and white,
`
`the application Hirota was aimed at. Thus, incorporating Hirota’s teaching into Pirim PCT
`
`furthers Pirim PCX’s stated objective of disclosing a “generic” image processing system that can
`
`be used for a variety of applications. While the primary application for the generic system
`
`considered by Pirim PCX is detection of a drowsydriver, ail other image processing applications
`
`are also contemplated: “It will be appreciated that when used in non-vehicular applications, the
`
`camera may be mounted in any desired fashion to detect the specific criteria of interest.” Pirim
`
`PCTat 10-11. Additionally, Pirim PCX’s objective of disclosing a “generic” image processing
`
`system constitutes a teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led a
`
`POSITAto modify Pirim PCX to incorporate Hirota’s image processing capability.
`
`c. Ground #3
`
`Ground#1. Requested claim | is obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Hirota.
`
`1.
`
`RE: Claim 1
`
`The following is the individual elements of claim 1.
`
`[1 Pre.]: A visual perception processor for automatically detecting an event occurring in a
`multidimensional space(i, j) evolving over time with respect to at least one digitized
`parameterin the form of a digital signal on a data bus, said digital signal being in the form
`of a succession aj; of binary numbers associated with synchronization signals enabling to
`define a given instant (T) of the multidimensional space andtheposition(i, j) in this space,
`the visual perception processor comprising:
`
`Hirota discloses a visual perception processor, as shownin Figure 1, element 10.
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0018
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0018
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 17
`
`In Hirota, the color copying machine scans a documentandstores the imageas digital
`
`pixel color values addressed by line and column(1.e., the claimed 1, j multidimensional space).
`
`Id. at 4:56-59 (“In the A/D conversion section 100, the analog image signals are converted to 8-
`
`bit digital data (256 gradation levels) of red (R), green (G), and blue (B)”); 4:67-5:3 (“a line
`
`correction section 104 adjusts the output of the data after shading correction according to
`
`positions of chips of red, green, and blue provided in the color CCD sensor36.’’). Hirota also
`
`discloses synchronization signals TG and VCLKusedfor each line. Id. at 7:55-60. Thus, Hirota
`
`discloses the claimed aj;r value in the form of a color value that is associated withaline, a
`
`column,and a time. Coloris the claimed “digitized parameter.”
`
`The visual perception processoris used to detect “‘an event occurring in a
`
`multidimensional space(i, ) evolving over time” because the page is scanned oneline at a time,
`
`over time, as the scannertravels along the page, in order to detect an event, e.g., whether the
`
`page is color or black and white. Id., at 7:9-16. The event occurring in a multidimentional space
`
`evolves over time because it changes and growsas newlines are generated. The event occurring
`
`in a multidimensional space also evolves over time as new pagesare input by the automatic
`
`document feeder into the scanner. Id. at 1:28-35 (emphasis added)).
`
`[1A]: the data bus; [1B]: a control unit
`
`Figure 2A in Hirota discloses the remainder of the claim limitations in the histogram unit,
`
`element 110. In Hirota, two different histogram unit embodiments are disclosed and depicted in
`
`Figures 4 and 13. Hirota, at 3:37-38, 60-61. Figure 13 showsthe data bus. Hirota at Certificate of
`
`Correction, Fig. 13. The data bus carries the color parameter to the histogram unit. Id. At 7:26-
`
`30.
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0019
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`IPT Ex-2005, p. 0019
`LG v IPT
`IPR2023-00104
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 90/014,056
`
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 18
`
`With respect to the “control unit” in the claim, Hirota disclosesthis limitation. For
`
`example, Figures 2A and 2B show a Timing controller (Element 106), a CPU (Element 152), an
`
`automatic exposure processor (Element 130), a Gammacorrection / color balance controller
`
`(Element 150), and a Printer controller I/F. Id. at 5:3-5, 6:22-23, and 6:16-19.
`
`Fag3d
`
`ZZé g
`he
`
`$ ZZ
`
`;