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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the text in figures 10B, 15B, 19B is illegible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. It should be noted that the Japanese set of drawings, filed on 03/29/2024, have clear versions of the same figures.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
an event detection unit configured to in claims 1, 9, 11, and 15 (sufficient structure to perform the recited function can be found in ¶0016 & ¶0020);
a data transmission unit configured to in claims 1, 3, 10, 15 and 17;
a luminance detection unit configured to in claim 11 (sufficient structure to perform the recited function can be found in ¶0016 & ¶0019);
an additional information generation unit configured to in claim 11;
a data receiving unit configured to in claims 12-13, 15 and 17;
an event-related data processing unit configured to in claims 12 and 15; and
a processing unit… to control in claims 14 and 18.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 3, 9-15, and 17-18 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 limitations “a data transmission unit configured to, an additional information generation unit configured to, a data receiving unit configured to, an event-related data processing unit configured to, and a processing unit… to control” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. For computer-implemented means-plus-function claim limitations, a corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor is required. See MPEP 2181 (II)(B). The disclosure is devoid of any sufficient structure that is associated with a computer or microprocessor to perform the functions of these claim limitations. Mere references to a general purpose computer or microprocessor with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting “software” without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, is not an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 20200410272 A1).
Concerning claim 1, Seo et al. (hereinafter Seo) teaches an image sensor comprising:
an event detection unit (fig. 1: vision sensor 100) configured to detect an occurrence of an event as a luminance change in light received by a photodiode (¶0005; ¶0033; ¶0079); and
a data transmission unit (fig. 1: vision sensor 100) configured to transmit data in such a frame structure that event data indicating a content of the event is a part of payload data (fig. 4A: R_ADDR/C_ADDR; ¶¶0040-0041: “…an amount of event signals (EVS) transmitted from the vision sensor 100 to the processor 200…”; ¶0054; ¶0056) and frame information to be added to a frame as additional information additionally provided to the event data is a part of embedded data (fig. 4A: time stamp (TS); ¶0055: “…TS may include information regarding the time at which the event occurs”).
Concerning claim 2, Seo further teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the frame information is arranged in a start position of the event data including a plurality of lines, an end position of the event data (fig. 4A: TS is positioned after the event data), an intermediate position of the event data or the start and end positions of the event data.
Concerning claim 3, Seo further teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the data transmission unit concatenates a plurality of frames of the event data as subframes and transmits a result as one frame (fig. 15B; ¶0146-0150: “…the processor 200 (see FIG. 1) may use the plurality of frames, which are received from the vision sensor 100, in an overlapped manner. For example, the vision sensor 100 may merge the plurality of frames.” “For example, a first frame FRM1 through the third frame FRM3 may overlap…”).
Concerning claim 4, Seo further teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the additional information includes a timestamp (fig. 4A: TS; ¶¶0054-0055) or a frame number related to the event data.
Concerning claim 5, Seo further teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the additional information includes an event detection threshold generated on the basis of the event data or ROI (Region of Interest) information (¶¶0062-0065: information regarding pixels/events included in ROIs may be included).
Concerning claim 10, Seo further teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, wherein the data transmission unit sets region information corresponding to a region set for an image of the event data for each row in the image and transmits, for each row, the set region information and the event data to serve as region data corresponding to the region, and the region information includes information indicating a row position and a column position of the region included in the row (fig. 4A: R_ADDR/C_ADDR; ¶0056; ¶0065; ¶¶0069-0070).
Concerning claim 11, Seo teaches the image sensor according to claim 1, further comprising a luminance detection unit configured to detect a luminance of light received by the photodiode and output a luminance signal representing a luminance value thereof (fig. 1: vision sensor 100; ¶0005; ¶0033; ¶0079); and an additional information generation unit configured to generate the frame information as additional information provided additionally to the event data on the basis of the event data (fig. 4A: time stamp (TS); ¶0055: “…TS may include information regarding the time at which the event occurs”),
wherein
the event detection unit obtains a difference between the luminance value represented by the luminance signal and a prescribed reference value, detects an occurrence of the event and outputs the event data indicating the content of the event when the difference exceeds an event detection threshold on a positive side or an event detection threshold on a negative side (¶0033; ¶0035).
Concerning claim 12, Seo teaches a data processing device comprising:
a data receiving unit configured to receive data in such a frame structure that event data indicating a content of an event as a luminance change in light received by a photodiode is a part of payload data and frame information to be added to a frame as additional information additionally provided to the event data is a part of embedded data (fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the receiving process is the inverse of the transmission process (as seen in claim 1) and is performed by processor 200 to process the output of vision sensor 100); and
an event-related data processing unit configured to perform data processing related to the event by referring to the frame information (fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the processors may process the event signals a detect a movement of an object that is being imaged by the vision sensor).
Concerning claim 13, Seo further teaches the device according to claim 12, wherein the data receiving unit receives region information set corresponding to a region set for an image of the event data and for each row in the image (figs. 5A-5B; fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the receiving process is the inverse of the transmission process performed by the vision processor), and the event data to serve as region data corresponding to the region, and the region information includes information indicating a row position and a column position of the region included in the row (fig. 4A: R_ADDR/C_ADDR; ¶0056; ¶0065; ¶¶0069-0070; fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the receiving process is the inverse of the transmission process performed by the vision processor).
Concerning claim 15, Seo teaches an image sensory system comprising:
an image sensor having an event detection unit configured to detect an occurrence of an event as a luminance change in light received by a photodiode (fig. 1: vision sensor 100; ¶0005; ¶0033; ¶0079) and
a data transmission unit (fig. 1: vision sensor 100) configured to transmit data in such a frame structure that event data indicating a content of the event is a part of payload data (fig. 4A: R_ADDR/C_ADDR; ¶¶0040-0041: “…an amount of event signals (EVS) transmitted from the vision sensor 100 to the processor 200…”; ¶0054; ¶0056) and frame information to be added to a frame as additional information additionally provided to the event data is a part of embedded data (fig. 4A: time stamp (TS); ¶0055: “…TS may include information regarding the time at which the event occurs”) and
a data processing device having a data receiving unit configured to receive the event data and the frame information (fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the receiving process is the inverse of the transmission process (as seen in claim 1) and is performed by processor 200 to process the output of vision sensor 100), and
an event-related data processing unit configured to perform data processing related to the event by referring to the frame information (fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the processors may process the event signals a detect a movement of an object that is being imaged by the vision sensor).
Concerning claim 17, Seo further teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the data transmission unit sets, for each row in an image of the event data, region information corresponding to a region set for an image and transmits the set region information and the event data to serve as region data corresponding to the region data corresponding to the region for each row (fig. 4A: R_ADDR/C_ADDR; ¶0056; ¶0065; ¶¶0069-0070),
the data receiving unit receives the region information and the event data to serve as region data (fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038: the processors may process the event signals a detect a movement of an object that is being imaged by the vision sensor), and
the region information includes information indicating a row position and a column position of the region included in the row (fig. 4A: R_ADDR/C_ADDR; ¶0056; ¶0065; ¶¶0069-0070; fig. 1: processor 200; fig. 19: main processor 1200; ¶¶0033-0038).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20200410272 A1) in view of Ichimaru et al. (US 20200128168 A1).
Concerning claim 6, Seo teaches the image sensor according to claim 1. Not explicitly taught is wherein the additional information includes flicker information generated based on the basis of the event data.
Ichimaru et al. (hereinafter Ichimaru) teaches an imaging device, wherein flicker information generated based on the basis of the event data is added as additional information (¶0066; ¶0124). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Seo and Ichimaru in order to correct luminance unevenness due to flicker.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20200410272 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US 11943557 B2).
Concerning claim 7, Seo teaches the image sensor according to claim 1. Not explicitly taught is wherein the additional information includes an optical flow indicating whether there is movement of a subject generated on the basis of the event data or a moving direction thereof.
Kim et al. (hereinafter Kim) teaches an image sensor module, wherein the additional information includes an optical flow indicating whether there is movement of a subject generated on the basis of the event data or a moving direction thereof (col. 10, ll. 36-47; col. 15, ll. 19-24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Seo and Kim in order to increase the accuracy of object detection.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 20200410272 A1) in view of Wakabayashi (WO 2020116185 A1).
Concerning claim 9, Seo teaches the image sensor according to claim 1. Not explicitly taught is wherein when the event detection unit is an arbiter type device, a frame for one frame including the event data to be output from the event detection unit at the timing of event occurrence.
Wakabayashi teaches a solid-state imaging device, wherein when the event detection unit is an arbiter type device, a frame for one frame including the event data to be output from the event detection unit at the timing of event occurrence (¶0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Seo and Wakabayashi in order to track event timing relative to frame data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 14, 16 and 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M ANDERSON II whose telephone number is (571)270-1444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, BRIAN PENDLETON can be reached at 571-272-7527. 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.
/James M Anderson II/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2425