DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-12 and 14-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Also, please refer to US 20230084807, which also appears to read on the current independent claims.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/01/2026 has been entered.
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. 18/848,537 (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 § 102
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.
Claims 1-10, 12 and 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (herein after will be referred to as Lee) (US 20220103741).
Regarding claim 1, Lee 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 Lee [0157-0171] Controller to extract depth information by a preset pattern comparison.]
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 Lee [0162-0164] Image received through the camera. Also, see 0295 and/or 0298, The camera sensor is an event sensor.]
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 Lee [0162-0164] Extract depth information of the image received through the camera. Also, calculating a shift amount (i.e. Changed form, changed distance, changed direction, and the like) based on the pattern comparison.]
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the distance information based on an emission start time and a light reception time for the light. [See Lee [0157] a time of flight (ToF) scheme of extracting depth information on the basis of time during which light emitted from a light-emitting element is reflected to be returned, or any combination thereof.]
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving direction of the target. [See Lee [0162-0164] Extract depth information of the image received through the camera. Also, calculating a shift amount (i.e. Changed form, changed distance, changed direction, and the like) based on the pattern comparison.]
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the complementary information is information indicating a moving distance of the target. [See Lee [0162-0164] Extract depth information of the image received through the camera. Also, calculating a shift amount (i.e. Changed form, changed distance, changed direction, and the like) based on the pattern comparison.]
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the predetermined pattern includes a figure, and wherein the difference includes at least one of a difference in a size and a difference in a position. [See Lee [Fig. 15 and/or 17] Patterns comprising of spots or crosses. Applicant’s published spec. para. 0027 states that “The light with the predetermined pattern has a pattern including a figure, and is, for example, a plurality of dot patterns arranged in a lattice manner, a plurality of line patterns arranged at regular intervals, or the like. By way of example, a plurality of dot patterns arranged in a lattice manner will hereinafter be described as an example”. Also, see 0163, calculating a shift amount regards the reflected/returned light with respect to the preset pattern (changed form, and the like) and/or 0310, depth image based on pattern shift, size, intensity and distribution of pattern.]
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 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 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 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.
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, Lee discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Furthermore, Lee discloses
wherein the light with the predetermined pattern is infrared light. [See Lee [0167] Infrared light.]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20220103741) in view of Jang et al. (herein after will be referred to as Jang) (US 20240098347).
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses the system of claim 6. Furthermore, Lee 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 Lee to add the teachings of Jang, in order to incorporate an obvious client-server computing technology to monitor an event imaging apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Taamazyan et al. (US 20230084807) – Event camera for providing movement direction of the object (para. 0094) and for depths imaged by the event camera (para. 0006). Also, see 0005, structured light projectors are used with event cameras.
Chen (US 20210374983) - [Fig. 1A] Event sensor with a Ranging (ToF) sensor. The event sensor senses a motion trajectory of an object (para. 0020) and the ranging sensor detects object distance (para. 0025).
Matsui (US 20250148612) – Fig. 6 and para. [0114-0016] ToF Camera with a event-based camera. Motion from image data obtained by the event camera. Also, 0058, ToF camera supplies distance/depth information to an information processing apparatus.
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