DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see application, filed 03/02/2026, with respect to the specification and drawing objections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections above have been withdrawn.
Applicant requests that the DP rejection be held in abeyance at this time.
Applicant argues that Zalevksy does not teach “a predetermined pattern”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Zalevsky discloses a speckle pattern (para. 0006). Furthermore, Zalevksy discloses that the size of speckle in the speckle pattern via light returning from the sample is dependent on the distance from the sample (para. 0068). Therefore, the object motion (that compliments the distance information) is monitored/detected via identifying changes in speckle patterns (para. 0006).
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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of copending Application No. 18/848,347 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because this instant application is broader in scope than the co-pending application listed above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 10, 12, 14-15, 18-20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa et al. (herein after will be referred to as Niwa) (US 20230039270) in view of Zalevsky et al. (herein after will be referred to as Zalevsky) (US 20200103217).
Regarding claim 1, Niwa discloses an information processing apparatus comprising:
processing circuitry configured to: calculate distance information regarding a distance to a target irradiated with light including a predetermined pattern; [See Niwa [Fig. 1] ToF sensor with signal processing unit.]
construct an image on a basis of, among event signals output by an event-based sensor, the event signal output according to reflected light from the target; and [See Niwa [Fig. 1] DVS sensor. Also, see 0091, generates image data from the DVS.]
Niwa does not explicitly disclose
calculate complementary information that complements the distance information, on a basis of a change in a shape of the predetermined pattern in the image.
However, Zalevsky does disclose
calculate complementary information that complements the distance information, on a basis of a change in a shape of the predetermined pattern in the image. [See Zalevsky [0006] Movement of objects by identifying changes in speckle patterns in light returning from the object….is generally determined in accordance with image data indicative on the collected pattern relative to size distribution of speckles in the generated patterns.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Niwa to add the teachings of Zalevsky, in order to incorporate additional data within event based cameras by using obvious illumination aspects such as an illumination pattern size changing when the object’s depth changes and thus indicates object movement.
Regarding claim 2, Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Niwa discloses
the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the distance information on a basis of an irradiation start time and a light reception time for the light. [See Niwa [Fig. 1] ToF sensor with signal processing unit.]
Regarding claim 5, Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Niwa does not explicitly disclose
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.
However, Zalevsky does disclose
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. [See Zalevsky [0006] Movement of objects by identifying changes in speckle patterns in light returning from the object….is generally determined in accordance with image data indicative on the collected pattern relative to size distribution of speckles in the generated patterns.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, see examiners rejection for claim 1 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see examiners rejection for claim 2 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see examiners rejection for claim 5 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 20.
Regarding claim 21, Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Niwa discloses
wherein the light with the predetermined pattern is infrared light. [See Niwa [Fig. 1 and 0088] Light source (11) for outputting laser light. Also, see 0245, infrared light corresponds to the laser light output from the light source.]
Claims 3-4, 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa (US 20230039270) in view of Zalevsky (US 20200103217) and in further view of Russ et al. (herein after will be referred to as Russ) (US 20210141094).
Regarding claim 3, Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Niwa does not explicitly disclose
wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving direction of the target.
However, Russ does disclose
wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving direction of the target. [See Russ [0016] movement, distances and optical flow are determined from the data of an event-based camera.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) to add the teachings of Russ, in order to incorporate the advantages of event based image sensors [See Russ [0017]].
Regarding claim 4, Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) disclose the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Niwa does not explicitly disclose
wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving distance of the target.
However, Russ does disclose
wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving distance of the target. [See Russ [0016] movement, distances and optical flow are determined from the data of an event-based camera.]
Applying the same motivation as applied in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 9.
Regarding claim 16, see examiners rejection for claim 3 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, see examiners rejection for claim 4 which is analogous and applicable for the rejection of claim 17.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niwa (US 20230039270) in view of Zalevsky (US 20200103217) and in further view of Jang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Jang) (US 20240098347).
Regarding claim 11, Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) disclose the system of claim 6. Furthermore, Niwa does not explicitly disclose
wherein the information processing apparatus is a server.
However, Jang does disclose
wherein the information processing apparatus is a server. [See Jang [0101] Client-server computing technology. Also, see 0102, the device includes a dynamic vision sensor.]
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to modify the apparatus by Niwa (modified by Zalevsky) to add the teachings of Jang, in order to incorporate an obvious client-server computing technology to monitor an event imaging apparatus.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES T BOYLAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8242. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, JAMIE ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/JAMES T BOYLAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2486
Prosecution Insights