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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed March 19, 2026 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because Applicant’s certification is incorrect. The certification states that each reference was first cited not more than three months ago, but the Chen reference is cumulative with the Chen reference in the April 23, 2205 IDS. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
The examiner’s review of the Chen references shows that the earlier submitted Chen reference is longer, and a later version of the presently submitted Chen reference. However, if Applicant shows that the presently submitted Chen reference has, for example, “a more complete combination of the claimed elements,” the examiner will consider this IDS. MPEP 609.04(a)(II).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendment have persuasively overcome the specification objections, the claim objections, the drawing objection, and 112b rejections.
The remaining issues are addressed below.
112(d)
Applicant argues:
Claims 5 and 10 have been amended to cancel the rejected limitation, "wherein the light is supplemented to a whole or a part of the area," to address the rejection.
Examiner responds:
Claims 5 and 10 are unamended.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art are persuasive. A new reference has been applied.
Requirement for Information
An examiner or other Office employee may require from individuals identified under 37 CFR 1.56(c), the submission of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111, in a pending or abandoned application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371, in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding. The scope of 37 CFR 1.105 is extended to any assignee or anyone to whom there is an obligation to assign the application because the information required may be known to some members of the assignee or obligated assignee even if not known by the inventors.
The examiner is requiring a translation of the context/meaning of the Chinese phrase that was translated as “character detection model” from the Chinese priority document. In the previous action, the examiner understood this phrase to mean optical character recognition, such as shown in Fig. 5. However, after mailing that Office Action, the examiner came across an unrelated patent application that had been translated from Chinese where the phrase “character” meant a person. Specifying what the Chinese phrase means, such as optical character recognition or identification of a person, constitutes a complete reply to this requirement.
Examiner Notes
The invention does not appear to accomplish the goals set forth in the Background section of the specification. The Background explains that “the DVS has advantages on low-latency, no motion blur, high dynamic range, and low power consumption.” Specification, [0003]. However, the proposed technique requires the DVS to repeatedly image a stationary scene (see, e.g., Fig. 6, or the below 112(a) rejection). Specification, [0003] notes that “a wider dynamic range will be useful under extreme light conditions,” but appears incompatible with the claims’ requirement that the scene be captured under multiple lighting scenarios. The requirement for a stationary scene eliminates the advantages of low-latency and no motion blur. Further, the use of a light supplement with the extended DVS scene capture appears to eliminate the power savings.
Additionally, it is unclear how the present invention would be used to generate the required huge amount of labeled data (specification, [0004]) because it appears that each DVS frame needs to be manually set up with a given scene and lighting conditions (e.g., Figs. 2 and 4).
Drawings
The amendment filed February 20, 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: the new parts of Fig. 8 (e.g., the photo of a man in an office).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-11 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 7 recite “frames” and a “detection result,” but the technology disclosed by the specification is only applicable for stationary scenes (i.e., the claims cover processing scenes in motion, but the specification does not support scenes in motion). MPEP 2163(II)(A)(3)(a)(ii)’s discussion of Lizardtech is an analogous situation because the specification teaches one way of doing something, but the claims cover a more generic method not contemplated by the specification.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “generating a plurality of first frames in a first time period directly via a DVS,” but this is unclear because DVSes do not produce frames. As explained by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_camera, “An event camera, also known as a neuromorphic camera,[1] silicon retina,[2] or dynamic vision sensor,[3] is an imaging sensor that responds to local changes in brightness. Event cameras do not capture images using a shutter as conventional (frame) cameras do. Instead, each pixel inside an event camera operates independently and asynchronously, reporting changes in brightness as they occur, and staying silent otherwise.” Thus, dynamic vision sensors do not have frames, and thus it is unclear what is meant by generating the frame “directly.”
Claim 7 recites corresponding language and is likewise rejected.
Dependent claims are likewise rejected.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 5 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 5 and 10 recite “emit light to a whole or a part of area,” but this covers all possibilities for the parent claims’ “light is supplemented to an area,” and thus fails to further limit.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 or 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 1-11 (all claims) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Scheerlinck C. How to see with an event camera. The Australian National University (Australia); 2021 (a Ph.D. thesis) (“Scheerlinck”).
1. A method for auto-labeling dynamic vision sensor (DVS) frames, the method comprising: (Scheerlinck, p. 3, top, “Training is an other key challenge, with proposed solutions including self/un-supervised learning … .” Scheerlinck’s supervised learning teaches the claimed auto-labeling. Event camera is another name for a dynamic vision sensor.)
generating a plurality of first frames in a first time period directly via a DVS which is recording a real scene, wherein light is supplemented to an area where the DVS is recording, in the first time period (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
applying an existing camera-based deep learning model to at least one of the plurality of first frames to obtain at least one first detection result, (Scheerlinck, p. 11, Fig. 2.4)
the at least one first detection result obtained from the at least one of the plurality of first frames generated with supplemented light, (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
wherein the deep learning model is a character detection model (Scheerlinck, p. 11, Fig. 2.4. The character detection model can be “at once envisaged” (MPEP 2131.02(III), else, it is a known substitute.)
generating a plurality of second frames in a second time period via the DVS, wherein no light is supplemented to the area where the DVS is recording, in the second time period; and (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
wherein the plurality of first frames and the plurality of second frames depict substantially the same scene; (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
applying one of the at least one first detection result to for at least one of the plurality of second frames generated without supplemented light to generate at least one auto-labeled DVS frame. (Scheerlinck, p. 15, middle, “Rebecq et al. [2019, 2020b] demonstrate superior results (Fig. 2.4) using a recurrent convolutional neural network called ‘E2VID’ to learn supervised end-to-end video reconstruction from simulated event data.”)
To the extent that Scheerlink’s teachings are not anticipatory, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Scheerlink’s various techniques such that they can be used together, such as to generate sufficient events for Rebecq’s training. Scheerlink, p. 11, middle.
Based on the above, this is an example of “combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.” MPEP 2143.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the light is supplemented by a light generator which is arranged to combine with the DVS and emit light at intervals. (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the first time period and the second time period are alternate repeatedly, and each of the first time period and the second time period is in the order of milliseconds. (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the at least one first detection result comprises an identified object and an object area for auto-labeling, and (Scheerlinck, p. 11, Fig. 2.4)
wherein the at least one first detection result is transferred to the at least one of the plurality of second frames based on temporal proximity between the first time period and the second time period. (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the light is supplemented to a whole or a part of the area where the DVS is recording. (Scheerlinck, p. 9, bottom, “More strictly, event cameras … can see static scenes if the sensor is stimulated, for example by a strobe light.”)
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein applying the deep learning model to at least one of the plurality of first frames comprising: selecting one frame from the first frames as an input of the deep learning model, and determining the detection result based on an output of the deep leaning model. (Scheerlinck, p. 15, middle, “Rebecq et al. [2019, 2020b] demonstrate superior results (Fig. 2.4) using a recurrent convolutional neural network called ‘E2VID’ to learn supervised end-to-end video reconstruction from simulated event data.”)
Claims 7-11 are likewise rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US11488320B2 – abstract, “an event-based vision sensor configured to capture a target object to which light-emitting devices flickering at a predetermined first frequency are attached,”
US9489735B1 – 5:9-17, “FIG. 1A illustrates an example illustration of a two-phase checkered calibration sequence. The first phase of the two-phase calibration sequence may be a blank image, e.g., as depicted at 100. The second phase of the two-phase calibration image sequence may be a checkered image, e.g., as depicted at 102.”
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 DAVID ORANGE whose telephone number is (571)270-1799. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9-5.
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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571-272-3838. 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.
/DAVID ORANGE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2663
Prosecution Insights