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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 August 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 21 August 2026 have been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 remain pending in the application (claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled). The Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome each and every rejection previously set forth in the Final Rejection dated 23 June 2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 9-10, filed 21 August 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Seo et al. (USPGPub 20200410272 A1).
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 11, 13, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5: “the at least a portion” in lines 2-3 should be “at least the portion” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 11: “the vision sensor” in lines 16 and 22 respectively should be “the event-driven type vision sensor” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 13: “the region” in line 4 should be “the specified region” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language. (Note: “the specified region” in claim 11 can be changed to “the region” to overcome this issue as well).
Claim 16: “the vision sensor” in lines 3-4 should be “the event-driven type vision sensor” for further clarity and continuity in the claim language.
Claim 17: “the one of the of a plurality of criteria” in line 9 should be “the one of the plurality of criteria” for further clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 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.
Regarding claim 1, “or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value” in lines 10-11 is unclear. How can the second threshold, that exists without the first threshold, be smaller than the first threshold? In light of the specification and the claim language, the Examiner is interpreting the two threshold values to be unrelated to one another.
Claims 2-6 and 8-10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, “a plurality of conditions” in line 4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 1. Is this limitation referring to the same plurality of conditions mentioned previously or a different plurality of conditions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different plurality of conditions.
Claims 8-10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 6.
Regarding claim 8, “specify a region based on…the image processing; and determine whether to transmit the event signal based on position information…within the region” in lines 3-5 is unclear as claim 6 states that the image processing is performed on the transmitted event signal. How can the event signal be transmitted prior to the determination that it should be transmitted? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to transmitting the event signal to the image processing and further transmitting it after the image processing, however, that needs to be made clear in the claim language.
Claims 9-10 are rejected for their dependency on claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, “or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value” in lines 13-14 is unclear. How can the second threshold, that exists without the first threshold, be smaller than the first threshold? In light of the specification and the claim language, the Examiner is interpreting the two threshold values to be unrelated to one another.
Claims 12-13, 16, and 19 are rejected for their dependency on claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, “a plurality of criteria” in line 4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same plurality of different criteria mentioned previously or a different plurality of criteria? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same plurality of different criteria mentioned previously. Additionally, “or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value” in lines 6-7 is unclear. How can the second threshold, that exists without the first threshold, be smaller than the first threshold? In light of the specification and the claim language, the Examiner is interpreting the two threshold values to be unrelated to one another.
Claims 20-21 are rejected for their dependency on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, “a plurality of criteria” in line 5 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in the same claim. Is this limitation referring to the same plurality of different criteria mentioned previously or a different plurality of criteria? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to the same plurality of different criteria mentioned previously. Additionally, “or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value” in lines 7-8 is unclear. How can the second threshold, that exists without the first threshold, be smaller than the first threshold? In light of the specification and the claim language, the Examiner is interpreting the two threshold values to be unrelated to one another.
Claim 22 is rejected for its dependency on claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, “a plurality of conditions” in line 2 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 11, on which claim 19 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same conditions mentioned previously or a different plurality of conditions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different plurality of conditions.
Regarding claim 20, “a plurality of conditions” in line 3 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 17, on which claim 20 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same conditions mentioned previously or a different plurality of conditions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different plurality of conditions.
Regarding claim 21, “the region” in line 3 lacks proper antecedent basis and is therefore unclear.
Regarding claim 22, “a plurality of conditions” in line 4 is unclear as this limitation has been mentioned previously in claim 18, on which claim 22 is dependent. Is this limitation referring to the same conditions mentioned previously or a different plurality of conditions? In light of the specification, the Examiner is interpreting this limitation to be referring to a different plurality of conditions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding claim 1, in step I of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a signal processing device comprising:. The claim recites a machine. A machine is one of the sour statutory categories of invention
In step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
a transmission determination rule defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like determining relationships between values, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
set one of the plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like evaluating data to determine a threshold, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
determine whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on the one of the plurality of criteria. (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluations, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
one or more processors; (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
one or more memories storing: (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, the amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitations (IV), (V), and (VI), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply generic computer components as a tool to perform judicial exceptions, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Considering additionally elements individually and in combination, and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 2 recites:
calculate a score for a segment including at least a portion of the plurality of sensors; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like calculating a score, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106).
determine whether to transmit the event signal, based on the score. under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 2 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, it is dependent upon claim 2 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 3 recites calculate the score by adding up a number of event signals for the segment. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites the addition of signals which is interpreted as using a mathematical calculation. A mathematical calculation is interpreted as a mathematical concept. Therefore, claim 3 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, it is dependent upon claim 3 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 4 recites attenuate or reset the score at predetermined time intervals. under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like resetting/attenuating a data value, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106). Therefore claim 4 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, it is dependent upon claim 2 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 5 recites 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. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, obtaining data taken from a particular data source is merely selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine and conventional functions. Specifically the courts have recognized computer functions directed to selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated as well-understood, routine and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed, Cir. 2018), see UPSTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional activities:
Limiting a database index to XML tags, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d at 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d at 1937.
Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Therefore claim 5 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 2.
Regarding claim 6, it is dependent upon claim 1 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 6 recites:
perform image processing based on the transmitted event signal, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like analyzing/processing an image, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like determining criteria (i.e. data/values), which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 6 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, it is dependent upon claim 6 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 8 recites:
specify a region based on a result of the image processing; under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like selecting a subset area based on previously determined information, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
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. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 8 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 6.
Regarding claim 9, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 9 recites wherein at least a portion of the region overlaps an object. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like selecting a subset area based on previously processed information, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106). Therefore, claim 9 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, it is dependent upon claim 8 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 10 recites execute tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites the calculation of optical flow, which is interpreted as using a mathematical calculation. A mathematical calculation is interpreted as a mathematical concept. Therefore, claim 10 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, in step I of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a sensor device comprising:. The claim recites a machine. A machine is one of the sour statutory categories of invention
In step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
a transmission determination rule defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like determining relationships between values, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
set one of the plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like evaluating data to determine a threshold, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
determine whether to transmit the event signal from the vision sensor based on the one of the plurality of criteria; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
perform image processing based on the event signal; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like analyzing/processing an image, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
specify a region based on a result of the image processing, (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like selecting a subset area based on previously determined information, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluations, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
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; (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
one or more processors; (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
one or more memories storing: (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: (i.e., the generic computer components recited in this limitation merely add the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f))).
wherein the vision sensor is configured to output the event signal for the specified region. (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of obtaining a data instance is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, the amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitations (VI), (VII), (VIII), and (XI), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, merely recite steps that apply generic computer components as a tool to perform judicial exceptions, which represents merely adding the words “apply it”, or an equivalent, which are not indicative of an inventive concept (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Considering additionally elements individually and in combination, and the claims as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea.
Further, limitation (X), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the courts have recognized computer functions directed to mere data gathering as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed, Cir. 2018), see UPSTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Considering additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, it is dependent upon claim 11 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 12 recites wherein at least a portion of the region overlaps an object. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like selecting a subset area based on previously processed information, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106). Therefore, claim 12 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 11.
Regarding claim 13, it is dependent upon claim 11 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 13 recites execute tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites the calculation of optical flow, which is interpreted as using a mathematical calculation. A mathematical calculation is interpreted as a mathematical concept. Therefore, claim 13 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 11.
Regarding claim 15, it is dependent upon claim 11 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 15 recites:
calculate a score for a segment including at least a portion of the plurality of sensors; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like calculating a score, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106).
determine whether to transmit the event signal, based on the score. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of evaluation and judgement and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 15 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 11.
Regarding claim 16, it is dependent upon claim 11 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 16 recites:
perform the image processing based on an image signal from a sensor different from the vision sensor; under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like analyzing/processing an image, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
specify the region based on a result of the image processing on the image signal. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like selecting a subset area based on previously determined information, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 16 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 11.
Regarding claim 17, in step I of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a method comprising:. The claim recites a method. A method is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
setting one of a plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like evaluating data to determine a threshold, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
determining whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on the one of the of a plurality of criteria. (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluations, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
accessing a transmission determination rule defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions stored in one or more memories; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of accessing a data instance is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, the amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitation (III), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the courts have recognized computer functions directed to mere data gathering as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed, Cir. 2018), see UPSTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Considering additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, in step I of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the claim recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. The claims recites a non-transitory computer readable storage medium which is interpreted as an article of manufacture. An article of manufacture is one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step Prong 1 of the 101 analysis set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following limitations recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process or mathematical concept but for the recitation of generic computer components:
setting one of a plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time; (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like evaluating data to determine a threshold, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
determining whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on the one of the plurality of criteria. (i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation includes a step of observation, evaluation, and judgment and could be performed mentally like determining whether to output data, which is either a mental process of observation/evaluation/judgement (MPEP 2106)).
If the claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover activities classified under Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluations, judgement, or opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (III)) or Mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, or mathematical calculations (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection (I)). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
In Step 2A, Prong 2 of the 101 analysis, set forth in MPEP 2106, the examiner has determined that the following additional elements do not integrate this judicial exception into a practical application:
accessing a transmission determination rule defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions stored in one or more memories; ((i.e., the broadest reasonable interpretation of accessing a data instance is mere data gathering, which is an insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))).
Since the claim does not contain any other additional elements, the amount to integration into a practical application, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
In Step 2B of the 101 analysis set forth in the 2019 PEG, the examiner has determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception:
Regarding limitation (III), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps of mere data gathering, which has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. Specifically, the courts have recognized computer functions directed to mere data gathering as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity when considering evidence in view of Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed, Cir. 2018), see UPSTO Berkheimer Memorandum (April 2018)).
Examiner uses Berkheimer: Option 2, a citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) as noting well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of the additional elements:
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Considering additional elements individually and in combination, and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, it is dependent upon claim 11 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 19 recites wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like determining criteria (i.e. data/values), which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106). Therefore, claim 19 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 11.
Regarding claim 20, it is dependent upon claim 17 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 20 recites:
performing image processing based on the transmitted event signal, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like analyzing/processing an image, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like determining criteria (i.e. data/values), which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 20 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 17.
Regarding claim 21, it is dependent upon claim 17 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 21 recites executing tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, wherein the region corresponds to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites the calculation of optical flow, which is interpreted as using a mathematical calculation. A mathematical calculation is interpreted as a mathematical concept. Therefore , claim 21 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 17.
Regarding claim 22, it is dependent upon claim 18 and fails to resolve the deficiencies identified above by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, or introducing significantly more that the judicial exception. For example, claim 22 recites:
performing image processing based on the transmitted event signal, under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like analyzing/processing an image, which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, includes a step of observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion and could be performed mentally like determining criteria (i.e. data/values), which is either a mental process of observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106).
Therefore, claim 22 does not solve the deficiencies of claim 18.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, 15, and 17-18 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 20200410272 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 defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions (¶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: set one of the plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value (¶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; and ¶76, The signal processor may set at least one parameter and a threshold); and determine whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on the one of the plurality of criteria (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). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time.
However, Seo teaches wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time (¶35, the vision sensor 100 may adjust event occurrence conditions and/or detection conditions (e.g., threshold values) to reduce an amount (e.g., quantity, count, etc.) of event signals EVS that are generated and/or transmitted at any given point in time).
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 reduce the data transmission in order to prevent an excessive amount of data from being transmitted, which would slow down the processing of the device.
Regarding claim 2, Lee as modified by Seo teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (Lee 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 (Lee, ¶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 as modified by Seo teaches the signal processing device according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors (Lee 120) are configured to calculate the score by adding up a number of event signals for the segment (Lee, ¶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 defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions (¶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: set one of the plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value (¶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; and ¶76, The signal processor may set at least one parameter and a threshold); and determine whether to transmit the event signal from the vision sensor based on the one of the plurality of criteria (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). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time.
However, Seo teaches wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time (¶35, the vision sensor 100 may adjust event occurrence conditions and/or detection conditions (e.g., threshold values) to reduce an amount (e.g., quantity, count, etc.) of event signals EVS that are generated and/or transmitted at any given point in time).
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 reduce the data transmission in order to prevent an excessive amount of data from being transmitted, which would slow down the processing of the device.
Regarding claim 12¸ Lee as modified by Seo teaches the sensor device according to claim 11, 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 15, Lee as modified by Seo teaches the sensor device according to claim 11, wherein the one or more processors (Lee 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 (Lee, ¶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: accessing a transmission determination rule defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions stored in 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; see ¶87 for further details; 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); setting one of a plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value (¶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; and ¶76, The signal processor may set at least one parameter and a threshold); and determining whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on the one of the of a plurality of criteria (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). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time.
However, Seo teaches wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time (¶35, the vision sensor 100 may adjust event occurrence conditions and/or detection conditions (e.g., threshold values) to reduce an amount (e.g., quantity, count, etc.) of event signals EVS that are generated and/or transmitted at any given point in time).
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 reduce the data transmission in order to prevent an excessive amount of data from being transmitted, which would slow down the processing of the device.
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: accessing a transmission determination rule defining relationships among a plurality of different criteria and conditions stored in 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; see ¶87 for further details; 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); setting one of a plurality of criteria based on a condition among the conditions, wherein the plurality of criteria includes a first threshold value, or a second threshold value smaller than the first threshold value (¶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; and ¶76, The signal processor may set at least one parameter and a threshold); and determining whether to transmit an event signal from an event-driven type vision sensor comprising a plurality of sensors, based on the one of the plurality of criteria (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). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time.
However, Seo teaches wherein the first threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission amount, or the second threshold is associated with the condition indicating reducing data transmission time (¶35, the vision sensor 100 may adjust event occurrence conditions and/or detection conditions (e.g., threshold values) to reduce an amount (e.g., quantity, count, etc.) of event signals EVS that are generated and/or transmitted at any given point in time).
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 reduce the data transmission in order to prevent an excessive amount of data from being transmitted, which would slow down the processing of the device.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (USPGPub 20180032150 A1) in view of Seo et al. (USPGPub 20200410272 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Niwa et al. (USPGPub 20220345645 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Lee as modified by Seo teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to attenuate or reset the score (Lee, ¶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, the combination 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 the combination of Lee and Seo 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 20200410272 A1) as applied to claims 1, 11, 17, and 18 above, and further in view of Seo et al. (USPGPub 20220172375 A1) (hereinafter Seo2).
Regarding claim 6, Lee as modified by Seo teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors (Lee 120) are configured to perform image processing based on the transmitted event signal (Lee, see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305).However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo2 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 the combination of Lee and Seo to incorporate the teachings of Seo2 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 and Seo2 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 and Seo2 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 and Seo2 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 (Seo2, ¶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 (Seo2, ¶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 as modified by Seo teaches the one or more processors (Lee 120) (Lee, see figure 1). However, the combination 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, Seo2 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 the combination of Lee and Seo to incorporate the teachings of Seo2 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 as modified by Seo teaches the plurality of criteria (Lee, ¶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, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo2 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 the combination of Lee and Seo to incorporate the teachings of Seo2 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 as modified by Seo teaches performing image processing based on the transmitted event signal (Lee, see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo2 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 the combination of Lee and Seo to incorporate the teachings of Seo2 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 as modified by Seo teaches the one or more processors (Lee 120) for executing processing (Lee, see figure 1). However, the combination 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, Seo2 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 the combination of Lee and Seo to incorporate the teachings of Seo2 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 as modified by Seo 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 (Lee, see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305). However, the combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of criteria are according to a plurality of conditions related to the image processing.
However, Seo2 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 the combination of Lee and Seo to incorporate the teachings of Seo2 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 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action and to include 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Delic et al. (USPGPub 20200326414 A1): Delic teaches both increasing and decreasing the threshold value in order to provide different results (¶108, By decreasing the threshold down, as we are able to do globally for the entire chip, we can decrease the number of times a feature must be detected before it triggers a feature event. This reduction in threshold increases the data-rate and allows features whose verity is less certain to be transmitted. On the other hand a higher threshold increases the certainty about the transmitted features and reduces the data rate).
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