DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 22 July 2024 and 18 April 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations use a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are:
“a transmission determining section” in claims 1 and 14: The operation unit 230 is implemented, for example, by a processor that operates according to a program stored in the storage unit 240 and processes event signals read from the buffer memory 220 (¶14); and the operation unit 230 includes a transmission determining section 231 and an image processing section 232 as functional parts achieved by operation according to a program (¶15).
“an image processing section” in claims 6 and 11: The operation unit 230 is implemented, for example, by a processor that operates according to a program stored in the storage unit 240 and processes event signals read from the buffer memory 220 (¶14); and the operation unit 230 includes a transmission determining section 231 and an image processing section 232 as functional parts achieved by operation according to a program (¶15).
“a region specifying section” in claims 8 and 11: the operation unit 230 of the signal processing device 200 includes a region specifying section 233 in addition to the transmission determining section 231 and the image processing section 232 as a functional part achieved by operation according to a program (¶20).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-15, 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: a transmission determining section (120) that determines whether or not to transmit an event signal output from a vision sensor (100) (¶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; and see ¶85) which is of an event-driven type and which includes a plurality of sensors constituting a sensor array (110/210) (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), on a basis of position information for each of the sensors in the sensor array (110/210) (¶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 transmission determining section (120/220) determines whether or not to transmit the event signal (¶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), on a basis of a score calculated for each segment that is defined within the sensor array (110/210) and includes a plurality of the sensors (¶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 transmission determining section (120/220) calculates the score by adding up the number of event signals for each segment (¶42, Each of the plurality of sensing areas may have a corresponding cumulative event number).
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the signal processing device according to claim 1, further comprising: an image processing section (120/220) that performs image processing on a basis of the transmitted event signal (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305).
Regarding claim 8, Lee teaches the signal processing device according to claim 6, further comprising: a region specifying section that specifies a region on a basis of a result of the image processing (see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified), wherein the transmission determining section (120/220) determines whether or not to transmit the event signal output from the sensor (100) for which the transmission determining section has the position information regarding a position within 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 9, Lee teaches the sensor device according to claim 8, wherein the region specifying section specifies a region that overlaps an object (303) at least partially or that includes the object (303) (see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified).
Regarding claim 11, Lee teaches a sensor device comprising: a vision sensor (100) that is of an event-driven type and includes a plurality of sensors constituting a sensor array (110/210) (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); an image processing section that performs image processing on a basis of an event signal output from the vision sensor (100) (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305); and a region specifying section that specifies a region on a basis of 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 only 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 the region specifying section specifies a region that overlaps an object (303) at least partially or that includes the object (303) (see figure 3, the region comprising hand 303 being specified).
Regarding claim 14, Lee teaches the sensor device according to claim 11, further comprising: a transmission determining section (120/220) that determines whether or not to transmit the event signal to the image processing section, on a basis of position information for each of the sensors in the 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; 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 15, Lee teaches the sensor device according to claim 14, wherein the transmission determining section (120/220) determines whether or not to transmit the event signal, on a basis of a score calculated for each segment that is defined within the sensor array (110/210) and includes a plurality of the sensors (¶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 signal processing method comprising: determining whether or not to transmit an event signal output from a vision sensor (100) (¶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; and see ¶85) that is of an event-driven type and includes a plurality of sensors constituting a sensor array (110/210) (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), on a basis of position information for each of the sensors in the sensor array (110/210) (¶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 18, Lee teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium containing a program that causes a computer to implement a method, comprising: determining whether or not to transmit an event signal output from a vision sensor (100) (¶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; and see ¶¶85-86) that is of an event-driven type and includes a plurality of sensors constituting a sensor array (110/210) (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), on a basis of position information for each of the sensors in the sensor array (110/210) (¶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).
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.
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 transmission determining section attenuates or resets 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 processor attenuates or resets the score at predetermined time intervals.
However, Niwa teaches wherein the processor attenuates or resets 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 7, 10, and 13 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 7, Lee teaches wherein the transmission determining section determines whether or not to transmit the event signal (¶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). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining is a basis of a criterion different depending on a condition regarding the image processing.
However, Seo teaches wherein the determining is a basis of a criterion different depending on a condition regarding 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 10, Lee teaches the image processing section and the region specifying section (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305 and the region comprising hand 303 being specified). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the image processing section executes tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, and the region specifying section specifies a region corresponding to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation.
However, Seo teaches wherein the image processing section executes 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 the region specifying section specifies a region corresponding 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 13, Lee teaches the image processing section and the region specifying section (see figure 3, processing image to remove unwanted flickering object 305 and the region comprising hand 303 being specified). However, Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the image processing section executes tracking or optical flow calculation for an object, and the region specifying section specifies a region corresponding to a region of interest in the tracking or the optical flow calculation.
However, Seo teaches wherein the image processing section executes 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 the region specifying section specifies a region corresponding 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.
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 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 image processing section performs the image processing further on a basis of an image signal output from a sensor different from the vision sensor, and the region specifying section specifies the region on a basis of a result of the image processing performed based on the image signal.
Conclusion
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
/GEORGIA Y EPPS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2878