DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 14, 2026, with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Non-Final official correspondence of April 14, 2026 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 11 – 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer et al (US 2021/0241000, hereafter Pfeiffer) in view of Nakamura (US 2023/0232095) .
As per claim 1, Pfeiffer discloses a computer system for recognizing an object, the computer system comprising:
a memory for storing a program code; and
a processor for performing operations in accordance with the program code, wherein the operations include:
acquiring an event signal generated by an event-based vision sensor (¶ 37); and
recognizing the object based on the event signal that is generated by the event-based vision sensor at the determined timing of the occurrence of the vibration (¶ 45).
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach inputting a control signal to a vibration device to generate a vibration in the object; determining a timing associated with the vibration in the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches inputting a control signal to a vibration device to generate a vibration in the object; determining a timing associated with the vibration in the object (¶ 50, 79, and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Nakamura. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 2, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the timing of the occurrence of the vibration is identified based on timing when the control signal is inputted to the vibration device.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches the timing of the occurrence of the vibration is identified based on timing when the control signal is inputted to the vibration device (¶ 79 and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Nakamura. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 3, Pfeiffer teaches the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the information indicating the occurrence of vibration in the object is internally acquired as timing of input of the control signal.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches the information indicating the occurrence of vibration in the object is internally acquired as timing of input of the control signal (¶ 79 and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Nakamura. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 11, Pfeiffer discloses he computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein information indicating the occurrence of the vibration in the object includes information indicating the occurrence of a first-pattern vibration in the object and information indicating the occurrence of a second-pattern vibration in the object, the recognition of the object includes at least one of acquiring a first recognition result by recognizing the object according to an event signal generated at timing of the occurrence of the first-pattern vibration and acquiring a second recognition result by recognizing the object according to an event signal generated at timing of the occurrence of the second-pattern vibration, and the operations further include performing either a first process or a second process on the object according to at least one of the first recognition result and the second recognition result.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches wherein information indicating the occurrence of the vibration in the object includes information indicating the occurrence of a first-pattern vibration in the object and information indicating the occurrence of a second-pattern vibration in the object, the recognition of the object includes at least one of acquiring a first recognition result by recognizing the object according to an event signal generated at timing of the occurrence of the first-pattern vibration and acquiring a second recognition result by recognizing the object according to an event signal generated at timing of the occurrence of the second-pattern vibration, and the operations further include performing either a first process or a second process on the object according to at least one of the first recognition result and the second recognition result (¶ 50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Nakamura. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
Regarding claim 12, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 12.
Regarding claim 13, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 1 are applicable for claim 13.
As per claim 14, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the sensing signal indicates a change in luminance of the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses wherein the sensing signal indicates a change in luminance of the object (¶ 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Nakamura. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
Regarding claim 15, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 14 are applicable for claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 14 are applicable for claim 18.
Claim(s) 4 – 10, 16, 17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Nakamura (hereafter Pfeiffer) in further view of Arunmozhi (US 2023/0046071) .
As per claim 4, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 2.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the vibration device generates the vibration by emitting sound waves toward the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the vibration device generates the vibration by emitting sound waves toward the object (¶ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 5, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 4.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the timing of the occurrence of the vibration is identified by adding a delay time to the timing when the control signal is inputted to the vibration device.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the timing of the occurrence of the vibration is identified by adding a delay time to the timing when the control signal is inputted to the vibration device (¶ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 6, Pfeiffer teaches the computer system according to claim 5.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the delay time is calculated based on depth information regarding the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the delay time is calculated based on depth information regarding the object (¶ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 7, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 2.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the vibration device generates the vibration by contacting the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the vibration device generates the vibration by contacting the object (¶ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 8, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further include correcting an amplitude of the vibration that is detected based on the event signal, according to depth information regarding the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the operations further include correcting an amplitude of the vibration that is detected based on the event signal, according to depth information regarding the object (¶ 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 9, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein recognition of the object includes estimating a material of the object.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches teach wherein recognition of the object includes estimating a material of the object (¶ 82 and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
As per claim 10, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 9.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further include identifying candidate materials of the object by analyzing an image acquired through use of a frame-based vision sensor, and the material of the object is estimated from the candidate materials.
In the same field of endeavor, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the operations further include identifying candidate materials of the object by analyzing an image acquired through use of a frame-based vision sensor, and the material of the object is estimated from the candidate materials (¶ 82 and 84).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify the invention of Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
Regarding claim 16, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 4 are applicable for claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, arguments analogous to those presented for claim 10 are applicable for claim 20.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE whose telephone number is (571)270-1445. The examiner can normally be reached 8 am - 4:30 pm.
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, David Czekaj can be reached at 571-272-7327. 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.
/CHIKAODILI E ANYIKIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
Prosecution Insights