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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/28/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The claim of common ownership of the primary prior art reference of the preceding Office Actions, namely Matsui, is acknowledged, and said claim is given the presumption of correctness. However, the already cited Cullen reference is now applied such that the claims remain rejected. See claims mapping below.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Cullen (US 2023/0060421).
.
Regarding claim 1, Cullen discloses an information processing apparatus comprising: one or more processors; one or more memories having instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, (paragraph 0060, processor coupled to memory to effect information processing) cause the information processing apparatus to: identify at least one area in an image acquired using a frame- based vision sensor; (paragraph 0042, object region identified in image for object tracking) calculate, for a target area corresponding to the at least one area, distance information regarding a distance to a target irradiated with light with a predetermined pattern on a basis of a difference between an irradiation start time and a light reception time for the light with the predetermined pattern; (paragraphs 0104/0105/0107, IR lasers irradiate area with object at specified times per pattern and clocked event sensors capture light to detect object distance) construct an image of the target area based on an event signal output by an event- based sensor; (paragraphs 0106/0108, per event sensor, either the event sensor or further image sensor may image object) calculate complementary information that complements the distance information, on a basis of a change in a shape of the predetermined pattern in the image; (paragraphs 0109/0111/0119, change of shape of irradiated pattern calculated to map object trajectory) and track movement of the target area based on the complementary information and the distance information. (paragraph 0113, trajectory of object calculated based on distance information and other information per above)
Independent claims 7 and 14-16 recite features similar to claim 1, or broader features, and are therefore also anticipated by Cullen for reasons similar to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Cullen discloses wherein the light with the predetermined pattern is infrared light. (paragraph 0104, light beams are IR beams)
Regarding dependent claim 8, claim 8 is a system claim reciting feature similar to claim 2, and is therefore also taught by Cullen for reasons similar to claim 2.
Regarding claim 4, Cullen discloses wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving direction of the target. (paragraph 0113, sequence of trajectories indicates moving direction of object/target)
Regarding claim 5, Cullen discloses wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving distance of the target. (paragraphs 0111/0113, distances over time of the surface of the objects is trajectory)
Regarding dependent claims 10 and 11, claims 10 and 11 are system claims reciting system features similar to claims 4 and 5, respectively, and are therefore also anticipated by Cullen for reasons similar to claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 13, Cullen discloses wherein the information processing apparatus is a server. (paragraph 0047, information processing apparatus is a server computer)
Regarding claim 18, Cullen discloses wherein the at least one area has a predetermined area shape. (paragraph 0042, particular sensor in sensor bank defines area of image captured; further, object has a defined shape which is also an area)
Regarding claim 19, Cullen discloses wherein the at least one area comprises a plurality of areas, wherein the plurality of areas are identified by distinguishing the plurality of areas from one another. (paragraph 0042, multiple regions as defined by physical imaging apparatus for capture)
Regarding claim 20, Cullen discloses wherein the target area and the at least one area are different. (paragraph 0043, different objects in different areas, and different portions of images corresponding to different sensors in sensor bank)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen in view of Morozov (US 2020/0234458).
Regarding claim 6, Morozov teaches wherein the predetermined pattern includes a figure, and the change in the shape of the predetermined pattern includes at least one of a change in a size of the figure and a change in a position of the figure. (paragraph 0110, pattern is a square, and deformation of square used for depth determination)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use a shape in structured illumination because such was commonly used in the art in structured illumination for depth recovery before the effective filing date as evinced by Morozov. (paragraph 0110)
Regarding dependent claim 12, claim 12 is a system claim reciting feature similar to claim 6, and is therefore also taught by Morozov for reasons similar to claim 6.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cullen in view of Zeng (US 2020/0410690).
Regarding claim 17, Zeng teaches wherein the at least one area is determined using line segmentation. (paragraphs 0086/0102, objects determined by line segmentation)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application that line segmentation could be used for object/region delineation because line segmentation for the same was well known by those of skill in the art prior to the effective filing date as evinced by Zeng. (paragraphs 0086/0102)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Willomitzer (US 2023/0368457) has a priority date shortly after the instant application and is cited for relative state of the art.
Matsui (US 2025/0148612) is Applicant’s related application, so sworn.
Chen (US 2021/0374983) is cited for implementation details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER whose telephone number is (303)297-4401. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-6 MT.
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, Jay Patel can be reached at 571 272 2988. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER KINGSBURY GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 2485
/JAYANTI K PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2485
August 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights