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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner believes that the 3 references used in combination teach all the elements of claim 1.
Chen is only being used to teach a threshold based integration time control ( pars. 7 and 21).
Ji teaches outputting the DVS event frames to a transformation estimator for each selected frame-integration time and estimating transformations for event streams having different frame-integration times (see pars.25-29 of Ji). Also, Ji teaches that the camera-pose estimator estimates camera pose for each respective event stream having a different frame-integration time, and may correct or update an estimated pose based on a longer frame-integration time using an estimated transformation based on a shorter frame-integration time, such as 50 ms (Ji pars. 29-31).
Xu teaches using a hybrid input including an event stream and a low-frame-rate intensity image stream, generating event trajectories, and recovering motion based on the event trajectories and pose detections (section 3.1-3.2 of Xu).
That is, Ji teaches event-image generation using selected integration times and pose estimation based on the event-image stream; Xu teaches the reason to use event-camera information rather than conventional image frames for high-speed pose estimation; and Chen teaches threshold-based integration-time control.
As such, this rejection is made final.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji (20180174323) in view of Xu (EventCap: Monocular 3D Capture of High-Speed Human Motions using an Event Camera) in further view of Chen (2003018765).
Regarding claim 1, Ji teaches and the first event image comprises an image indicating a movement trajectory that is of a target object and that is generated when the target object moves in a detection range of a motion sensor (see the abstract and par. 24);
determining integration time of the first event image (par. 25);
and pose estimation (par. 20).
Xu teaches pose estimation method, comprising: obtaining a first event image and a first target image, wherein the first event image is aligned with the first target image in time sequence, the first target image comprises a red green blue (RGB) image or a depth image (see section 1, “we design a hybrid and ….”).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ji the ability to use both event information and conventional frame images as taught by Xu. The reason is to allow multiple sources.
Ji teaches pose estimation using the event frames In par. 20.
Chen teaches in response to the integration time being less than a first threshold, based on the first event image rather than the first target (see the abstract and claim 1, which teaches a threshold driven integration time control technique).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ji and Xu the ability use thresholds to control a mode selection as taught by Chen. The reason is to allow the system to use thresholds in order to determine which frame to choose so that processing is saved.
Regarding claim 2, see par. 32 of Ji, sync times.
Regarding claim 3-4, see par. 25 of Ji, associating frames.
Regarding claim 5, see par. 34 of Ji, short window even only.
Regarding claim 6, see pars. 32-33 of Ji.
Regarding claim 7, see par. 31 of Ji, each integration time stream is processed independently. The long window will yield pose when the short window is absent.
Regarding claims 19-20, see the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ji in view of Xu in further view of Chen in further view of Qi (20190259170).
Regarding claim 8, Qi teaches wherein the method further comprises: performing loopback detection based on the first event image and a dictionary, wherein the dictionary comprises a dictionary constructed based on event images (see par. 5, bag of words reads on dictionary).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Ji, Xu and Chen the ability to use a dictionary as taught by Qi in order to better identify events.
Regarding claim 9, see par. 5 of Qi that outputs landmarks.
Regarding claim 10, see pars. 90-92 of Qi, detect features.
Regarding claims 11-12, see pars. 71 of Qi, key frames based on quality. Ji computes confidence in par. 28.
Regarding claims 13-14, see par. 9 of Qi, SLAM uses RGB. Ji teaches depth in par. 6.
Regarding claim 15, Ji teaches multiscale correction in par. 34 and 28. Qi chooses the key frame with a stable mask in pars. 88-89.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights