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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “control unit” in claims 1-12; “accelerometer unit” in claim 4; and “input unit” in claim 6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(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) 1-3, 5, 8 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0098082 A1 to Burns et al.
With respect to claim 1 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, a sensor device (paragraph 15; system for hybrid motion estimation) comprising: a plurality of pixels each configured to receive light and perform photoelectric conversion to generate an electrical signal (paragraph 16-17; where the system has two sensors made of pixels that perform photoelectric conversion, the image frame camera and the DVS camera); event detection circuitry that is configured to detect as event data intensity changes above a predetermined threshold of the light received by each of a first subset of the pixels (paragraph 17 and 23); pixel signal generating circuitry that is configured to generate a pixel signal indicating intensity values of the received light for each pixel of a second subset of the pixels (paragraph 16 and 19); a control unit that is configured to start detection of event data at a first point in time earlier than generation of pixel signals at a second point in time (Fig. 2 and paragraph 28; where event data is detected at a high rate prior to a second point in time where a frame is generated from interpolation), and to reconstruct intensity values for the second subset of pixels for a time period between the first point in time and the second point in time by using the pixel signals generated after the second point in time and the event data detected before the second point in time (paragraph 28 and 30; where intensity values are reconstructed by generating interpolation frames using the event data and the image frames from the camera 104).
With respect to claim 2 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the first point in time is a time at which the sensor device is switched on (Fig. 2; where the sensor device would need to be switched on (i.e. not be turned off) in order to operate).
With respect to claim 3 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1, wherein the first point in time is a time at which the sensor device senses a predetermined condition (paragraph 37; where events being detected can pull the camera out of a sleep state).
With respect to claim 5 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 3, wherein the first point in time is a time at which a predetermined intensity is measured by at least one of the pixels (paragraph 23 and 37; where events being detected can pull the camera out of a sleep state and events are determined by predetermined intensity changes of pixels).
With respect to claim 8 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to reconstruct the intensity values by starting from pixel signals generated after the second point in time and by interpolating these pixels signals backwards in time based on the event data detected before the second point in time (paragraph 28 and 34).
With respect to claim 10 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1, wherein at least a part of the pixels belongs to the first subset of pixels and the second subset of pixels (paragraph 28; where a subset or all of the pixel locations can be used).
With respect to claim 11 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein pixels in the first subset of pixels are different from pixels in the second subset of pixels (paragraph 16-17; where they are different as they are in different sensors).
With respect to claim 12 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein pixel signals of the second subset of pixels form a consecutive series of image frames; and the reconstructed intensity values form image frames that precede the consecutive series of image frames (paragraph 28 and 34).
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as claim 1 above as it is a corresponding method claim to that of apparatus claim 1.
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) 4, 6-7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0098082 A1 to Burns et al.
With respect to claim 4 Burns discloses the sensor device according to claim 3 where the device is woken up from detecting an event (see above).
However, Burns does not expressly disclose further comprising an accelerometer unit for detecting accelerations of the sensor device; and the first point in time is a time at which a predetermined acceleration pattern has been detected by the accelerometer unit.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using multiple events to wake up an imaging device from a sleep and using an accelerometer to wake up an imaging device from a sleep state are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have also have allowed for an accelerometer to wake the device of Burns from the sleep state for doing so would merely be use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
With respect to claim 6 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1, further comprising an input unit for receiving inputs of a user of the sensor device (paragraph 52); wherein the second point in time is a time is a time where a new frame is determined to be generated (paragraph 28 and 34).
Burns does not expressly disclose that the interpolation timing is provided from a user via an input unit.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of allowing a user to set a frame interpolation timing via user input are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have allowed the user to set the interpolation rate of Burns, and therefore teach the user provides a predetermined input to the input unit to set the second time, as it would be applying a known technique of allowing a user to set settings to a known device of Burns ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 7 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1 (see above), wherein there is a sleep state and event data is used to exit the sleep state (paragraph 37) and where event data relates to motion (paragraph 12).
Burns does not expressly disclose how the sleep state is entered, i.e. wherein the control unit is configured to end detection of event data, when a rate of event detection per time falls below a predetermined value.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of entering a sleep state when there is a lack of events or motion are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have entered a sleep state based on a lack of events (i.e. lack of motion) for doing so would merely be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to claim 9 Burns discloses, in Fig. 1-8, the sensor device according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to reconstruct the intensity values based on processing that receives the pixel signals generated after the second point in time and the event data detected before the second point in time as input and provides the reconstructed intensity values as output (paragraph 34).
Burns does not expressly disclose the processing is an artificial intelligence model.
However, Official Notice (MPEP § 2144.03) is taken that both the concepts and advantages of using artificial intelligence models for frame interpolation based off motion are well known and expected in the art. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to have using AI for the processing of Burns for doing so would be use of a known technique to a known device of Burns ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following are also examples within the art that disclose event-based detection at a high rate between image frames for motion detection that is then applied to processing of the image frames: US 2021/0321052 A1 to Cossairt et al; US 2023/0042364 A1 to Ye et al; US 2024/0064422 A1 to Ke et al
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0152739 A1 to Lu et al is an example of using Artificial intelligence to perform frame interpolation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL M PASIEWICZ whose telephone number is (571)272-5516. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 5:30 PM EST.
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, George Eng can be reached at (571)272-7495. 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.
/DANIEL M PASIEWICZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699
February 19, 2026