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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/30/2025 overcomes the following objection(s) and/or rejection(s):
Claims 1-14 have been amended, 112(f) interpretation has been withdrawn.
Claim 16 has been amended, 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-17 pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-17 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stec et al., (US 20210136288 A1) in view of Evans et al (NPL: Unpowered event detection with an autonomous ferroelectric capacitor circuit).
Regarding claim 1, Stec et al teaches an information processing apparatus comprising: circuitry configured to determine a determination unit that determines whether an [[no]] event is detected based on a basis of event detection information indicating whether it is detected a detection result of an event generated by an event detection unit, the event detection unit detecting (Para 7 and Fig 1, an optical image stabilization (OIS) type actuator is incorporated within a camera module including an event sensor and this can be triggered when a static or apparently static scene, i.e. a scene where changes are so slow that events are not generated, is being imaged to generate events when the camera is not moving or the scene is not changing, so allowing the camera to produce an image for a static scene. i.e. an event detection (event-sensor) that determines that no event is detected (scene where changes are so slow that events are not generated). Also see Para 21 regarding detection of "no event."),
as the event, that a luminance change of a pixel in an imaqer imaging unit that photoelectrically converts an optical image indicating a subject exceeds a preset threshold value (Para 14 and Fig 1, the event-sensor 14 comprises an array of pixels (not shown) each of which can generate an event in response to a change in light intensity greater than a threshold amount in a given period of time. As will be appreciated, these events can occur at any given time and are then communicated across a bus to a processor 16 for further processing. In some cases, event information can be written to memory (not shown) and read from memory by the processor 16. i.e. the event is detecting a luminance (a change in light intensity) exceeding a threshold value);
and move a movement control unit that moves a position of the optical image indicating the subject in the imaqer imaging unit in a case where it is determined the determination unit determines that no event is detected (Para 7, an optical image stabilisation (OIS) type actuator is incorporated within a camera module including an event sensor and this can be triggered when a static or apparently static scene, i.e. a scene where changes are so slow that events are not generated, is being imaged to generate events when the camera is not moving or the scene is not changing, so allowing the camera to produce an image for a static scene. i.e. move a position of the optical image indicating the subject in the imaging unit in the event that no event is detected (trigger actuator when events are not generated)).
Stec et al does not teach, wherein the event is detected according to capacity in a communication path used for transmission of the event detection information.
In a similar field of endeavor, Evans et al teaches wherein the event is detected according to capacity in a communication path used for transmission of the event detection information (III. Power-off Write, the memory state of the capacitor may be written by an external circuit or sensor even with no power applied to the circuit. A positive voltage applied to the “input” node of the circuit in Figure 1 will turn on transistor T1 while also switching the ferroelectric capacitor down. The current from the capacitor flows through T1 to ground. To use the event detector, a controller sets the state of the latch up before shutting off power to itself and the autonomous memory bit. While the controller and memory are powered off, an external sensor connected to the input node can write the ferroelectric capacitor to the down state if an event it monitors occurs during the powered off period. When the controller awakens at a later time and applies conventional power to the autonomous memory, the latch will awaken in the down state. The controller will then know that the event occurred while it was asleep i.e. event is detected according to capacity in a communication path (controller knows that the event occurred while it was asleep) used for transmission of the event detect information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Stec et al., (US 20210136288 A1) in view of Evans et al (NPL: Unpowered event detection with an autonomous ferroelectric capacitor circuit) so that the event is detected according to capacity in a communication path used for transmission of the event detection information. Doing so would allow access by sensor outputs directly to the ferroelectric capacitor providing nonvolatile storage, creating an autonomous sensor that may record the occurrence of an environmental event while power to the circuit is off (Page 4, Evans et al).
Regarding claim 2, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry (Para 21, actuation can be triggered in a number of ways including periodically or in response to a frequency of event information provided by the event-sensor 14 dropping below a threshold level or even the frequency of event information for one or more regions of the event-sensor dropping below a threshold level or based on any other criteria. i.e. determination (actuation is triggered) occurs when the number of events is below a preset threshold value (dropping below a threshold level or even the frequency of event information for one or more regions of the event-sensor dropping below a threshold level)).
Regarding claim 3, Stec et al teaches he information processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the circuitry (Para 21, this actuation can be triggered in a number of ways including periodically or in response to a frequency of event information provided by the event-sensor 14 dropping below a threshold level or even the frequency of event information for one or more regions of the event-sensor dropping below a threshold level or based on any other criteria. i.e. determining whether each divided region is the event non-detection region (the event information frequency in one or more regions are individually determined to drop below a threshold level or not). The image has one or more arbitrarily divided regions).
Regarding claim 4, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry the optical image based on (Para 18, the processor 16 can at any time cause the actuator 18 to move sufficiently to cause the entire light field incident on the event-sensor 14 to change—in this case to shift. This will cause a change in light intensity at any pixels located close to any edges in the light field incident on the event-sensor 14. Where these changes are greater than the threshold amount set for the event-sensor 14, events will be generated by the relevant pixels and provided to the processor 16. Furthermore, Para 37, on the other hand, shifting the lens assembly 12 and event-sensor 14 relative to one another in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis will tend to highlight edges running in one direction. For example, shifting horizontally will tend to highlight vertical edges with horizontal edges generating very few events. As such, it may be desirable to be able to shift the lens assembly 12 and event-sensor 14 relative to one another in orthogonal directions to pick up on both types of edges. i.e. edges in one direction are recognized (determine a direction of an edge on a basis of the event detection information), as well as determining that no event is detected (very few events) in a case where there is a direction in which the edge is not detected (shifting horizontally will tend to highlight vertical edges with horizontal edges generating very few events). A case where there is a direction in which there is no event based on the edge not being detected in that direction can also be considered any direction in which there is no motion - or the motion (or change in pixel brightness) being under a threshold).
Regarding claim 5, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according claim 1, wherein the circuitry (Para 19 and Para 21, with reference to FIG. 2, where a static scene such as a car park in this case is being imaged, moving the lens 12 relative to the event-sensor 14 through the OIS actuator 18 generates a set of events from a sub-set of pixels distributed across the event-sensor 14 which can then be assembled to generate an edge based view of the scene—where the event-sensor 14 might otherwise not have been providing much if any information to the processor 16. i.e. a static scene is a scene that is below the threshold of motion events - but still detects motion events nonetheless (below a threshold does not mean no detection of motion). A case where there is a direction in which there is no motion can also be considered any direction in which there is no motion - or the motion (or change in pixel brightness) being under a threshold).
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim(s) 8-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stec et al., (US 20210136288 A1) in view of Evans et al (NPL: Unpowered event detection with an autonomous ferroelectric capacitor circuit) and Horesh et al (US 20190014258 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry imaqer configured to form imaqer(Fig 1, lens assembly 12 and event sensor 14 are imaging optical system that forms the optical image).
Stec et al and Evans et al does not teach, and wherein the circuitry imaqer
Stec et al does not specifically teach moving a position of an optical axis of the imaging optical system in the imager. However, Stec et al does teach moving the lens assembly relative to the optical axis (Para 23, In a typical OIS actuator, triggering of the actuator 18 causes the lens assembly 12 to move orthogonal to the optical axis, whereas it will be appreciated, the invention could work equally well if this movement comprised any of pitch, yaw or roll of the lens assembly 12 relative to the optical axis).
In a similar field of endeavor, Horesh et al teaches moving a position of an optical axis of the imaging optical system in the imaging unit (Para 18, the first example event-based imaging devices 100 includes an example optical pathway modulator 106 to move, via a micro-saccadic movement, one or more components of an example optical pathway 108 including the example sensor 102. The micro-saccadic movement of the one or more components of the example optical pathway 108 shifts light incident on the example pixel array 104 to cause a change in light intensity on the pixel in at least one pixel of the example pixel array 104. i.e. moving a position of an optical axis (pathway), can be seen in Fig 1 108).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Stec et al., (US 20210136288 A1) in view of Evans et al (NPL: Unpowered event detection with an autonomous ferroelectric capacitor circuit) and Horesh et al (US 20190014258 A1) so that the circuitry imaqer(Horesh et al., Para 15).
Regarding claim 9, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 8, wherein the circuitry is further configured to generate (Para 14 event information can be written to memory) and movement information regarding movement of the position of the optical image indicating the subject (Para 17, Either a processor such as the processor 16 or a dedicated OIS processor is connected to an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising a gyroscope and/or one or more accelerometers and the processor responds to camera movement detected during the acquisition of an image to cause counter movements in the actuator, so shifting the lens assembly relative to the sensor in order to maintain a sharp image in spite of camera movement during image acquisition. i.e. the movement information regarding movement of the position of the optical image indicating the subject must be recorded (generated event information) so that the IMU and the actuator can work together to accurate shift the lens assembly/optical axis in order to maintain a sharp image in spite of camera movement. Furthermore, Para 19, with reference to FIG. 2, where a static scene such as a car park in this case is being imaged, moving the lens 12 relative to the event-sensor 14 through the OIS actuator 18 generates a set of events from a sub-set of pixels distributed across the event-sensor 14 which can then be assembled to generate an edge based view of the scene. i.e. the movement information regarding movement of the position of the optical image (actuator moving lens is movement of position of the optical image) is used to assemble (generate) the final view of the scene, using this generated set of events relative to the movements of the event sensor).
Regarding claim 10, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry imager (Para 23, in a typical OIS actuator, triggering of the actuator 18 causes the lens assembly 12 to move orthogonal to the optical axis, whereas it will be appreciated, the invention could work equally well if this movement comprised any of pitch, yaw or roll of the lens assembly 12 relative to the optical axis. i.e. moving the imaging unit in a direction orthogonal to the optical axis of the imaging system).
Regarding claim 11, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according claim 10 wherein the circuitry imager (Fig 1 actuator 18, and Para 23, a typical OIS actuator, triggering of the actuator 18 causes the lens assembly 12 to move orthogonal to the optical axis, whereas it will be appreciated, the invention could work equally well if this movement comprised any of pitch, yaw or roll of the lens assembly 12 relative to the optical axis. i.e. movement of the imaging unit itself (movement of lens assembly) as the movement information (Para 19, with reference to FIG. 2, where a static scene such as a car park in this case is being imaged, moving the lens 12 relative to the event-sensor 14 through the OIS actuator 18 generates a set of events from a sub-set of pixels distributed across the event-sensor 14 which can then be assembled to generate an edge based view of the scene. i.e. the movement information regarding movement of the position of the optical image (actuator moving lens is movement of position of the optical image) is used to assemble (generate) the final view of the scene, using this generated set of events relative to the movements of the event sensor).
Regarding claim 12, Stec et al and Evans et al do not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry imager
In a similar field of endeavor, Horesh et al teaches moving a position of an optical axis of the imaging optical system in the imaging unit (Para 18, the first example event-based imaging devices 100 includes an example optical pathway modulator 106 to move, via a micro-saccadic movement, one or more components of an example optical pathway 108 including the example sensor 102. The micro-saccadic movement of the one or more components of the example optical pathway 108 shifts light incident on the example pixel array 104 to cause a change in light intensity on the pixel in at least one pixel of the example pixel array 104. i.e. moving a position of an optical axis (pathway), can be seen in Fig 1 108, with respect to the entire imaging unit 100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Stec et al., (US 20210136288 A1) in view of Evans et al (NPL: Unpowered event detection with an autonomous ferroelectric capacitor circuit) and Horesh et al (US 20190014258 A1) so that the circuitry imagercamera (e.g., low power, low communication bandwidth, high dynamic range (Horesh et al., Para 15).
Regarding claim 13, Stec et al and Evans et al do not teach the information processing apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the circuitry
In a similar field of endeavor, Horesh et al teaches moving a position of an optical axis of the imaging optical system in the imaging unit (Para 18, the first example event-based imaging devices 100 includes an example optical pathway modulator 106 to move, via a micro-saccadic movement, one or more components of an example optical pathway 108 including the example sensor 102. The micro-saccadic movement of the one or more components of the example optical pathway 108 shifts light incident on the example pixel array 104 to cause a change in light intensity on the pixel in at least one pixel of the example pixel array 104. i.e. moving a position of an optical axis (pathway), can be seen in Fig 1 108);
wherein the circuitry (Para 18, the micro-saccadic movement may include n micro-saccadic movements, where n is any integer, occurring over any period, t. […] the micro-saccadic movement may be expressed by a component movement profile defined by acceleration vector(s), velocity vector(s), and displacement vector(s) characterizing the movement of the component from the first position to the second position. i.e. the movement information regarding the shifting of the optical axis (micro-saccadic movements) is saved in the form of component movement profiles).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Stec et al., (US 20210136288 A1) in view of Evans et al (NPL: Unpowered event detection with an autonomous ferroelectric capacitor circuit) and Horesh et al (US 20190014258 A1) so the circuitry (Horesh et al., Para 15).
Regarding claim 14, Stec et al teaches the information processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the circuitry- includes, in the event information, motion information generated by a motion sensor that detects a motion of a mobile body including the imager (Para 17, the camera includes an actuator 18 of the type employed in lens systems for optical image stabilisation (OIS). Typically, such actuators comprise an open rectangular frame which sits between the lens assembly 12 and a sensor holder. Either a processor such as the processor 16 or a dedicated OIS processor is connected to an inertial measurement unit (IMU) comprising a gyroscope and/or one or more accelerometers and the processor responds to camera movement detected during the acquisition of an image to cause counter movements in the actuator, so shifting the lens assembly relative to the sensor in order to maintain a sharp image in spite of camera movement during image acquisition. i.e. IMU is motion sensor that detects a motion of a mobile body including the imaging unit).
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 in the combination above. Furthermore, claim 17 claims: move a position of the optical image indicating the subject in the imager in a case where it is determined that no event is detected (Para 19, with reference to FIG. 2, where a static scene such as a car park in this case is being imaged, moving the lens 12 relative to the event-sensor 14 through the OIS actuator 18 generates a set of events from a sub-set of pixels distributed across the event-sensor 14 which can then be assembled to generate an edge based view of the scene. i.e. the movement information regarding movement of the position of the optical image (actuator moving lens is movement of position of the optical image) is used to assemble (generate) the final view of the scene (generates an image indicating the subject), using this generated set of events relative to the movements of the event sensor - Stec et al).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-7 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 examiner would like to note that claims 6-7 were objected to as potentially allowable in the non-final rejection mailed 10/10/2025.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter in claims 6-7:
Primary reference Stec et al states in Paragraph 20, "as events are thus typically only generated for pixels at edges in the light field, the number of events generated by triggering the actuator 18 is still relatively small by comparison to for example, a complete frame for a typical image sensor. Thus, even though the bus or any communication path between the event-sensor 14 and processor 16 is typically designed to handle limited traffic, this need not be overwhelmed by the event information generated in response to the driving of the actuator 18 by the processor 16."
This clearly does not teach the limitation of claim 6: wherein the determination unit determines that no event is detected in a case where capacity shortage in a communication path occurs in transmission of the event detection information.
The examiner would also like to make reference to Motonari et al (WO 2020067410 A1) which discusses examining a voltage difference signal and set capacitances C1 and C2 to determine if an event has occurred or not based on “the transfer unit 75 determines that a luminance change as an event has occurred according to the quantization value of the difference signal from the quantization unit 74, that is, the difference signal (Vout) is greater than the threshold voltage Vth. Then, event data representing the occurrence of the event is output to the output unit 34” (Page 8). However, Motonari et al does not teach wherein the determination unit determines that no event is detected in a case where capacity shortage in a communication path occurs in transmission of the event detection information.
No other reference alone or in combination teaches the limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 6 objected to as allowable if incorporated into an independent claim. Claim 7 objected to due to dependence.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cuevas, C., Mohedano, R., & García, N. (2012). Kernel bandwidth estimation for moving object detection in non-stabilized cameras. Optical Engineering, 51(4), 040501-040501.
Barrios-Avilés, J., Iakymchuk, T., Samaniego, J., Medus, L. D., & Rosado-Muñoz, A. (2018). Movement Detection with Event-Based Cameras: Comparison with Frame-Based Cameras in Robot Object Tracking Using Powerlink Communication. Electronics, 7(11), 304.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JACK PETER KRAYNAK whose telephone number is (703)756-1713. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 AM - 5 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, Vu Le can be reached at (571) 272-7332. 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.
/JACK PETER KRAYNAK/Examiner, Art Unit 2668
/UTPAL D SHAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668