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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 10 April 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-18 remain pending in the application, as well as newly added claims 19-22 (claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the specification and claims overcome each and every objection and 112(f) interpretation previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection dated 16 January 2026. However, while the amendments overcome the rejection previously set forth as written, they fail to overcome the previous combination of references used.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9, the Applicant argues that Lee, individually or in combination with the other cited references, fails to teach “memories storing: [a] transmission determination rule” and determining whether to transmit an event signal based on a plurality of criteria defined in the aforementioned rule. However, the Examiner disagrees. In Lee, the “transmission determination rule” is the determination of whether a detected signal has exceeded a threshold (according to ¶64 of Lee, the threshold is determined by a plurality of parameters). Once a processor determines that a threshold has been exceeded (i.e. a transmission determination rule has been “passed”), the system outputs an event signal. For the reasons set forth above, Lee teaches the newly amended claims.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (USPGPub 20180032150 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lee teaches a signal processing device comprising: one or more processors (120) (see figure 1, signal processor 120; and ¶85, A processing device may be implemented using one or more general-purpose or special purpose computers, such as, for example, a processor, a controller and an arithmetic logic unit, a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a field programmable array, a programmable logic unit, a microprocessor or any other device capable of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner); and one or more memories (¶85, The processing device also may access, store, manipulate, process, and create data in response to execution of the software; ¶86, The software and data may be stored by one or more non-transitory computer readable recording mediums; and see ¶87 for further details) storing: a transmission determination rule (¶64, The signal processor 220 may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The threshold may be determined based on feedback of a user or may be experimentally determined in a manufacturing process. Individual parameters may be determined for each of the sensing areas based on feedback of a user, and the threshold may be determined by the individual parameters, which will be further described below); and instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (120), cause the one or more processors (120) to: determine whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on one of a plurality of criteria defined in the transmission determination rule (see figures 1-2, sensor array 110/210; ¶5, there is provided an event signal processing method including receiving an activation signal to indicate sensing of an event from a sensor array; ¶7, The event signal processing method may further comprise, in response to the sensing area being determined as a flickering area, at least one of discarding the activation signal of the sensing area; see ¶85; ¶58, The sensor array 110 may sense an event in which an intensity of light incident on a sensing pixel changes, and may output an activation signal to indicate sensing of the event; and ¶60, The signal processor 120 may increase the cumulative event number of a sensing area corresponding to an activation signal among sensing areas, may reduce the cumulative event number of each of the sensing areas based on at least one parameter, and/or may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The signal processor 120 may determine an activation signal corresponding to a flickering area to be associated with a meaningless event, and may discard the activation signal).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (120) are configured to: calculate a score for a segment including at least a portion of the plurality of sensors; and determine whether to transmit the event signal, based on the score (¶7, The event signal processing method may further comprise, in response to the sensing area being determined as a flickering area, at least one of discarding the activation signal of the sensing area; and ¶64, The signal processor 220 may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas).
Regarding claim 3¸ Lee teaches the signal processing device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors (120) are configured to calculate the score by adding up a number of event signals for the segment (¶42, Each of the plurality of sensing areas may have a corresponding cumulative event number).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a sensor device comprising: an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, a sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to output an event signal upon detecting a change in an intensity of incident light (see figures 1-2, sensor array 110/210; and ¶58, The sensor array 110 may sense an event in which an intensity of light incident on a sensing pixel changes, and may output an activation signal to indicate sensing of the event); one or more processors (120) (see figure 1, signal processor 120; and ¶85, A processing device may be implemented using one or more general-purpose or special purpose computers, such as, for example, a processor, a controller and an arithmetic logic unit, a digital signal processor, a microcomputer, a field programmable array, a programmable logic unit, a microprocessor or any other device capable of responding to and executing instructions in a defined manner); and one or more memories (¶85, The processing device also may access, store, manipulate, process, and create data in response to execution of the software; ¶86, The software and data may be stored by one or more non-transitory computer readable recording mediums; and see ¶87 for further details) storing: a transmission determination rule (¶64, The signal processor 220 may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The threshold may be determined based on feedback of a user or may be experimentally determined in a manufacturing process. Individual parameters may be determined for each of the sensing areas based on feedback of a user, and the threshold may be determined by the individual parameters, which will be further described below); and instructions that when executed by the one or more processors (120), cause the one or more processors (120) to: determine whether to transmit the event signal from the vision sensor based on one of a plurality of criteria defined in the transmission determination rule (see figures 1-2, sensor array 110/210; ¶5, there is provided an event signal processing method including receiving an activation signal to indicate sensing of an event from a sensor array; ¶7, The event signal processing method may further comprise, in response to the sensing area being determined as a flickering area, at least one of discarding the activation signal of the sensing area; see ¶85; ¶58, The sensor array 110 may sense an event in which an intensity of light incident on a sensing pixel changes, and may output an activation signal to indicate sensing of the event; and ¶60, The signal processor 120 may increase the cumulative event number of a sensing area corresponding to an activation signal among sensing areas, may reduce the cumulative event number of each of the sensing areas based on at least one parameter, and/or may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The signal processor 120 may determine an activation signal corresponding to a flickering area to be associated with a meaningless event, and may discard the activation signal); perform image processing based on the event signal (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305); and specify a region based on a result of the image processing (see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified), wherein the vision sensor (100) is configured to output the event signal for the specified region (¶60, The signal processor 120 may determine an activation signal corresponding to a normal area to be associated with a meaningful event, and may transfer an event signal of a corresponding event to an external device).
Regarding claim 12¸ Lee teaches the sensor device according to claim 11, wherein at least a portion of the region overlaps an object (303) (see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified).
Regarding claim 15, Lee teaches the sensor device according to claim 11, wherein the one or more processors (120) are configured to: calculate a score for a segment including at least a portion of the plurality of sensors; and determine whether to transmit the event signal, based on the score (¶7, The event signal processing method may further comprise, in response to the sensing area being determined as a flickering area, at least one of discarding the activation signal of the sensing area; and ¶64, The signal processor 220 may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas).
Regarding claim 17, Lee teaches a method comprising: determining whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on one of a plurality of criteria defined in a transmission determination rule (see figures 1-2, sensor array 110/210; ¶5, there is provided an event signal processing method including receiving an activation signal to indicate sensing of an event from a sensor array; ¶7, The event signal processing method may further comprise, in response to the sensing area being determined as a flickering area, at least one of discarding the activation signal of the sensing area; see ¶85; ¶58, The sensor array 110 may sense an event in which an intensity of light incident on a sensing pixel changes, and may output an activation signal to indicate sensing of the event; ¶60, The signal processor 120 may increase the cumulative event number of a sensing area corresponding to an activation signal among sensing areas, may reduce the cumulative event number of each of the sensing areas based on at least one parameter, and/or may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The signal processor 120 may determine an activation signal corresponding to a flickering area to be associated with a meaningless event, and may discard the activation signal; and ¶64, The signal processor 220 may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The threshold may be determined based on feedback of a user or may be experimentally determined in a manufacturing process. Individual parameters may be determined for each of the sensing areas based on feedback of a user, and the threshold may be determined by the individual parameters, which will be further described below).
Regarding claim 18, Lee teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing a program that causes a computer to implement a method (¶87, The method according to the above-described example embodiments may be recorded in non-transitory computer-readable media including program instructions to implement various operations embodied by a computer), comprising: determining whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on one of a plurality of criteria defined in a transmission determination rule (see figures 1-2, sensor array 110/210; ¶5, there is provided an event signal processing method including receiving an activation signal to indicate sensing of an event from a sensor array; ¶7, The event signal processing method may further comprise, in response to the sensing area being determined as a flickering area, at least one of discarding the activation signal of the sensing area; see ¶85; ¶58, The sensor array 110 may sense an event in which an intensity of light incident on a sensing pixel changes, and may output an activation signal to indicate sensing of the event; ¶60, The signal processor 120 may increase the cumulative event number of a sensing area corresponding to an activation signal among sensing areas, may reduce the cumulative event number of each of the sensing areas based on at least one parameter, and/or may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The signal processor 120 may determine an activation signal corresponding to a flickering area to be associated with a meaningless event, and may discard the activation signal; and ¶64, The signal processor 220 may determine, as a flickering area, at least one sensing area of which the cumulative event number exceeds a threshold among the sensing areas… The threshold may be determined based on feedback of a user or may be experimentally determined in a manufacturing process. Individual parameters may be determined for each of the sensing areas based on feedback of a user, and the threshold may be determined by the individual parameters, which will be further described below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPub 20180032150 A1) in view of Niwa et al. (USPGPub 20220345645 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to attenuate or reset the score (¶10, The event signal processing method may further comprise determining whether the cumulative event number of the changed sensing area is to be additionally reduced or initialized, based on whether the changed sensing area is a flickering area or a normal area for a predetermined period of time). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to attenuate or reset the score at predetermined time intervals.
However, Niwa teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to attenuate or reset the score at predetermined time intervals (see figures 9A-9C; and ¶125, During a period from a time point Ta1 to a time point Ta2, the control unit 40 sets the reset control signal Srs to an H level to reset the detection operation of the event detection circuits 300).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Niwa to further include resetting the event detection circuits in order to allow the device to continue detecting subsequent events.
Claims 6, 8-10, 13, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPub 20180032150 A1) in view of Seo et al. (USPGPub 20220172375 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (120) are configured to perform image processing based on the transmitted event signal (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305).However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo teaches wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing (¶83, each 4×4 size period of a pixel array may be set as a binning region, and when two or more events have occurred in a binning region (con), it is determined that an event has occurred in that binning region; ¶85, data obtained after applying event binning may include information indicating that no event has occurred in the first binning region b1, and an on-event has occurred in the second binning region b2, and an off-event has occurred in the third binning region b3, and no event has occurred in the fourth binning region b4; and see all of ¶¶83-85 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Seo to transmit data based on image processing in order to extract information from the detected signals allowing the device to detect movement of an object.
Regarding claim 8, Lee as modified by Seo teaches the signal processing device according to claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are configured to: specify a region based on a result of the image processing (Lee, see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified); and determine whether to transmit the event signal based on position information for a sensor among the plurality of sensors indicative of a position within the region (Lee, ¶60, The signal processor 120 may determine an activation signal corresponding to a normal area to be associated with a meaningful event, and may transfer an event signal of a corresponding event to an external device).
Regarding claim 9, Lee as modified by Seo teaches the signal processing device according to claim 8, wherein at least a portion of the region overlaps an object (Lee 303) (Lee, see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified).
Regarding claim 10, Lee as modified by Seo teaches the signal processing device according to claim 8,wherein the one or more processors are configured to: execute tracking or optical flow calculation for an object (Seo, ¶27, the image processing device 10 may include a vision sensor 100 and a processor 200. The vision sensor 100 detects a variation in an intensity of incident light and transmits vision sensor data VSD including at least one of an event signal EVS, a timestamp map TSM, and an optical flow map OFM, to the processor 200), and wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation (Seo, ¶29, The vision sensor 100 may transmit, to the processor 200, those event signals EVS generated from pixels PX corresponding to a region of interest (ROI) set in a pixel array 110 from among event signals generated to correspond to the pixel array 110).
Regarding claim 13, Lee teaches the one or more processors (120) (see figure 1). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more processors are configured to: execute tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, and wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation.
However, Seo teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to: execute tracking or optical flow calculation for an object (¶27, the image processing device 10 may include a vision sensor 100 and a processor 200. The vision sensor 100 detects a variation in an intensity of incident light and transmits vision sensor data VSD including at least one of an event signal EVS, a timestamp map TSM, and an optical flow map OFM, to the processor 200), and wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation (¶29, The vision sensor 100 may transmit, to the processor 200, those event signals EVS generated from pixels PX corresponding to a region of interest (ROI) set in a pixel array 110 from among event signals generated to correspond to the pixel array 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Seo to execute tracking or optical flow calculation in order to determine if the object in the region of interest is moving.
Regarding claim 19, Lee teaches the plurality of criteria (¶64, The threshold may be determined based on feedback of a user or may be experimentally determined in a manufacturing process. Individual parameters may be determined for each of the sensing areas based on feedback of a user, and the threshold may be determined by the individual parameters, which will be further described below). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo teaches teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing (¶83, each 4×4 size period of a pixel array may be set as a binning region, and when two or more events have occurred in a binning region (con), it is determined that an event has occurred in that binning region; ¶85, data obtained after applying event binning may include information indicating that no event has occurred in the first binning region b1, and an on-event has occurred in the second binning region b2, and an off-event has occurred in the third binning region b3, and no event has occurred in the fourth binning region b4; and see all of ¶¶83-85 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Seo to transmit data based on image processing in order to extract information from the detected signals allowing the device to detect movement of an object.
Regarding claim 20, Lee teaches performing image processing based on the transmitted event signal (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305).However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo teaches wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing (¶83, each 4×4 size period of a pixel array may be set as a binning region, and when two or more events have occurred in a binning region (con), it is determined that an event has occurred in that binning region; ¶85, data obtained after applying event binning may include information indicating that no event has occurred in the first binning region b1, and an on-event has occurred in the second binning region b2, and an off-event has occurred in the third binning region b3, and no event has occurred in the fourth binning region b4; and see all of ¶¶83-85 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Seo to transmit data based on image processing in order to extract information from the detected signals allowing the device to detect movement of an object.
Regarding claim 21, Lee teaches the one or more processors (120) for executing processing (see figure 1). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach executing tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, and wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation.
However, Seo teaches executing tracking or optical flow calculation for an object (¶27, the image processing device 10 may include a vision sensor 100 and a processor 200. The vision sensor 100 detects a variation in an intensity of incident light and transmits vision sensor data VSD including at least one of an event signal EVS, a timestamp map TSM, and an optical flow map OFM, to the processor 200), and wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation (¶29, The vision sensor 100 may transmit, to the processor 200, those event signals EVS generated from pixels PX corresponding to a region of interest (ROI) set in a pixel array 110 from among event signals generated to correspond to the pixel array 110).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Seo to execute tracking or optical flow calculation in order to determine if the object in the region of interest is moving.
Regarding claim 22, Lee teaches the non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 18, wherein the method further comprises performing image processing based on the transmitted event signal (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305).However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo teaches wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing (¶83, each 4×4 size period of a pixel array may be set as a binning region, and when two or more events have occurred in a binning region (con), it is determined that an event has occurred in that binning region; ¶85, data obtained after applying event binning may include information indicating that no event has occurred in the first binning region b1, and an on-event has occurred in the second binning region b2, and an off-event has occurred in the third binning region b3, and no event has occurred in the fourth binning region b4; and see all of ¶¶83-85 for further details).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee to incorporate the teachings of Seo to transmit data based on image processing in order to extract information from the detected signals allowing the device to detect movement of an object.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the signal processing device according to claims 2 and 1 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the segment is defined by combining a boundary line parallel to a direction in which the at least a portion of the plurality of sensors are arranged and a boundary line oblique to the direction.
Regarding claim 16, the prior art of record individually or combined fails to teach the sensor device according to claim 11 as claimed, more specifically in combination with wherein the one or more processors are configured to: perform the image processing based on an image signal from a sensor different from the vision sensor; and specify the region based on a result of the image processing on the image signal.
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 ERIN R GARBER whose telephone number is (571)272-4663. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 0730-1730.
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, Georgia Y Epps can be reached at (571)272-2328. 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.
/ERIN R GARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 2878
Prosecution Insights