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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/19/2024, 12/04/2025 and 12/04/2025 are in compliance with the provisions on 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species III in the reply filed on 12/31/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-4 and 17-19 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/31/2025.
Claims 17-19 depend on claim 2 which is drawn to a nonelected Species and are therefore withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2022/0299543 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US 2022/0172375 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carlson et al. (hereafter referred as Carlson) teaches an electronic device comprising:
an OF (optical flow) sensor that measures the displacement of image features over time (Carlson, Paragraph 0036);
an inertial measurement unit whose positional relation with the vision sensor is known and which is configured to measure at least one physical quantity (Carlson, Paragraph 0038, IMU); and
processing circuitry configured to generate additional information (Carlson, Fig. 8, Step 810, Paragraph 0074, The scale correction factor is seen to be the additional information) related to an image signal or an output value of the inertial measurement unit (Carlson, Fig. 8, Step 802, Paragraph 0074) by associating a) flow information detected on a basis of the image signal with (b) a flow pattern associated in advance (Carlson, Fig. 4, Paragraph 0055) with (i) the at least one physical quantity or (ii) an estimated value based on the at least one physical quantity (Carlson, Paragraph 0074, Angular velocity is seen to be the at least one physical quantity.).
However, Carlson does not teach a vision sensor that is an event-driven type sensor, that includes a sensor array having a sensor, and that is configured to generate an event signal when detecting a change in an intensity of incident light.
In reference to Seo et al. (hereafter referred as Seo), Seo teaches an OF (optical flow) sensor may be a vision sensor that is an event-driven type sensor, that includes a sensor array having a sensor, and that is configured to generate an event signal when detecting a change in an intensity of incident light (Seo, Figs. 1-2, Paragraphs 0027-0028 and 0056-0057).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to image sensors generating optical flow information. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the invention of Carlson with the use of an event driven vision sensor as seen in Seo since it is a known sensor for producing optical flow information and would provide similar and expected results for generating optical flow information.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the event signal generated by the vision sensor indicates at least one of a time stamp of the change in the intensity, sensor identification information indicating a portion of the sensor which detected the change in the intensity, or a polarity of the change in the intensity (Seo, Paragraph 0028, 0035-0036, 0054 and 0079).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the event signal generated by the vision sensor indicates a time stamp of the change in the intensity, sensor identification information indicating a portion of the sensor which detected the change in the intensity, and a polarity of the change in the intensity (Seo, Paragraph 0028, 0035-0036, 0054 and 0079).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the at least one physical quantity measured by the inertial measurement unit includes at least one of acceleration or angular velocity (Carlson, Paragraph 0004 and 0036).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the at least one physical quantity measured by the inertial measurement unit includes acceleration and angular velocity (Carlson, Paragraph 0004 and 0036).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the inertial measurement unit includes at least one of a gyro sensor or an acceleration sensor (Carlson, Paragraph 0004 and 0036).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the inertial measurement unit includes a gyro sensor and an acceleration sensor (Carlson, Paragraph 0004 and 0036).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the flow information maps time-series brightness changes indicated by the event signal (Carlson, Paragraphs 0002 and 0004, Seo, Paragraphs 0030 and 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate at least one of a displacement of the electronic device or a posture angle of the electronic device based upon the output value of the inertial measurement unit (Carlson, Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0036 0106).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carlson et al. (US 2022/0299543 A1) in view of Seo et al. (US 2022/0172375 A1) in view of Ye et a. (US 2019/0273909 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Carlson and Seo teaches the electronic device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 analysis), wherein the processing circuitry is configured to estimate a posture angle of the electronic device based upon the output value of the inertial measurement unit (Carlson, Paragraphs 0004-0005, 0036 0106).
However, the combination of Carlson and Seo does not teach estimating a displacement of the electronic device based upon the output value of the inertial measurement unit.
In reference to Ye et al. (hereafter referred as Ye), Ye teaches teach estimating a displacement of the electronic device based upon the output value of the inertial measurement unit (Ye, Paragraph 0061 and 0114).
These arts are analogous since they are both related to relating image data and IMU data. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the combination of Carlson and Seo with the method of determining displacement based on IMU data as seen in Ye to check the validity of the vision data (Ye, Paragraph 0114).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 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 following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
With regard to claim 5, prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious:
“The electronic device according to claim 1, wherein the additional information includes depth information concerning a subject of the vision sensor, the flow pattern is associated with a depth of the subject in addition to (i) the at least one physical quantity or (ii) the estimated value based on the at least one physical quantity, and the processing circuitry is configured to: extract the flow pattern as a flow pattern corresponding to (i) the output value acquired in synchronization with the flow information or (ii) an estimated value based on the output value, and generate the depth information on a basis of the depth of the subject associated with a flow pattern which the flow information at least partially matches in the extracted flow pattern.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY JASON CHIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1312. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am-4pm.
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, Twyler Haskins can be reached at (571) 272-7406. 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.
/WESLEY J CHIU/ Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639