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 .
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 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.
Claim(s) 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a program which does not fall within the four categories considered for eligible subject matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pfeiffer et al (US 2021/0241000, hereafter Pfeiffer).
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), acquiring, separately from the event signal,
information indicating occurrence of vibration in the object, and recognizing the object according to the event signal that is generated by the event-based vision sensor at timing of the occurrence of the vibration (¶ 45).
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.
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) 2 - 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Arunmozhi (US 2023/0046071) .
As per claim 2, Pfeiffer discloses the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further include inputting a control signal to a vibration device that generates the vibration in the object and 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, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the operations further include inputting a control signal to a vibration device that generates the vibration in the object and the timing of the occurrence of the vibration is identified based on 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 3, Pfeiffer teaches the computer system according to claim 1.
However, Pfeiffer does not explicitly teach wherein the operations further include inputting a control signal to a vibration device that generates the vibration in the object, and 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, Arunmozhi teaches wherein the operations further include inputting a control signal to a vibration device that generates the vibration in the object, and the information indicating the occurrence of vibration in the object is internally acquired as timing of input of the control signal (¶ 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 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.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pfeiffer in view of Delamont (US 2020/0368616).
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, Delamont 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 (¶ 483).
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 Delamont. The advantage is improving accuracy of object detection.
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