Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Seo et al. (US 2020/0410272 A1).
5. Regarding claim 1, a sensor device [[(10)]] (…Seo teaches image processing device 10; [0035]; Fig. 1…) comprising:
a plurality of pixels [[(51)]] each configured to receive light and perform photoelectric conversion to generate an electrical signal (…wherein [0030-0032] teach that element 10 includes a vision sensor 100/101; [0045] further teaches that vision sensor 100 includes a pixel array 110..);
circuitry [[(20)]] configured to
generate image data from the electrical signals based on imaging parameters that are adjustable for each pixel (…wherein [0031] teaches processor 200 to generate image based on signals from the vision sensor; [0035] teaches event occurrence (or detection conditions) with respect to a region of interest of the pixel array…);
a control unit [[(30)]] (…[0049] teaches an event rate controller 130; Fig. 3…) that is configured to
divide for each of a series of specific time periods the plurality of pixels [[(51)]] into at least a first subset [[(S1)]] of pixels [[(51)]] and a second subset [[(S2)]] of pixels (…wherein [0049-0050] teaches that an event occurrence condition may include a sensitivity of a pixel PX and an event detection period; further controller 130 may determine an amount of event signals EVS that are generated at an event detection circuit 120; thus event detecting signals may be viewed as corresponding to a particular group of pixels, different from pixels which are not pixels processed for generating event pixels…);
to set for each specific time period to the pixels [[(51)]] of each subset [[(S1)]] a different parameter value of at least one of the imaging parameters (…wherein [0048-0049] teaches that controller 130 may adjust event occurrence/detection conditions by adjusting threshold values (as such a sensitivity of the pixel PX with respect to a given time period…), and
to generate final images [[(F)]] by using the image data obtained via the at least two subsets of pixels [[(51)]] during the respective specific time period (…wherein as taught in [0045], sensed incident light by pixel array 110 is used to generate an image through processing…).
6. Regarding claim 2, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim above), wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
generate the final image also based on information about the division of the plurality of pixels into the different subsets (…wherein [0033] teaches that a “pixel array of the vision sensor 100 may capture an image of an object based on the pixels PX of the pixel array generating one or more electrical signals in response to incident light being received and/or absorbed at said pixels PX”; wherein event signals are part of the pixel array corresponding to particular region(s) of interest...).
7. Regarding claim 3, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
set the different parameter values such as to cause complementary reconstruction properties for image data generation in the different subsets (…wherein as taught in [0035], event occurrence conditions or detection conditions are set with respect to region of interest of the pixel array and as such these regions may each have their own condition of setting; as such these conditions are viewed as elements which make complementary reconstruction possible…).
8. Regarding claim 4, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to perform the division of the plurality of pixels [[(51)]] into the subsets of pixels [[(51)]] randomly (…wherein [0041] teaches event signals may be selectively transmitted in a limited manner (e.g. one or some)…).
9. Regarding claim 5, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
perform the division of the plurality of pixels [[(51)]] into the subsets of pixels [[(51)]] at consecutive points in time based on an evaluation of previously generated final images [[(F)]] (…wherein as stated in [0048], the event rate controller 130 may adjust an amount of the event signals thereby limit the selection from a total amount of detected event signals…).
10. Regarding claim 6, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 5 (see claim 5 above), wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
change the pixel ratio of the number of pixels [[(51)]] in the different subsets (…wherein [0035] teaches that different regions of interest may have varying conditions for event detection condition; as such the recognition of regions is taken into consideration, therefore this is viewed as being relative to previously generated image wherein the region is recognized…).
11. Regarding claim 7, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 6 (see claim 6 above), wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
segment the plurality of pixels [[(51)]] into different areas based on the evaluation of the previously generated final images [[(F)]], and to divide the pixels [[(51)]] in different areas according to different pixel ratios (…wherein [0035] teaches that different regions of interest may have varying conditions for event detection condition; [0142] further teaches that vision sensor 100 may perform motion estimation to estimate the ROI of the second frame based on the ROI of a first frame…).
12. Regarding claim 9, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
generate during each specific time period predetermined intermediate images (…wherein [0142] teaches the generation of frames…), and
to generate the final images by fusing intermediate images of different subsets of pixels [[(51)]] (…wherein [0146] teaches the output of a plurality of frames (FRM1-FRM4) as an event data…).
13. Regarding claim 11, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the circuitry [[(20)]] is configured to
generate as image data event data that indicate intensity changes above an event detection threshold of the light (…wherein Seo in [0003] teaches an event as a change in intensity of light incident on a vision sensor. Further, [0045] teaches that pixels may sense events in which incident light intensity increases or decreases; as such it is commonly known that the function of determining an increase or a decrease is performed through thresholding with a reference value...); and
the at least one imaging parameter is one of the event detection threshold (…wherein [0040] teaches changes in intensity as being relative to event signals…),
a pixel bandwidth (…wherein the increase or decrease value for determining an event occurrence can be viewed as a pixel bandwidth…), and
a refractory period during which a pixel [[(51)]] is inert after event detection (…wherein [0071] teaches the transmission of reset signal to a pixel after event detection; thus the reset time may be viewed as a refractory period…).
14. Regarding claim 13, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), further comprising
a sensor chip [[(l0a)]] on which the pixels [[(51)]] and the circuitry [[(20)]] are arranged (…wherein Seo teaches that the vision sensor 100 (to include processor 200) may be implemented by a circuitry as such a system-on-chip, as taught in [0037]…); wherein
the sensor chip [[(l0a)]] comprises
a first port [[(40a)]] for outputting the image data from the sensor chip [[(l0a)]] (…wherein as depicted in Fig. 19, a display device 1500 is connected to a main processor 1200…) , and
a second port [[(40b)]] for inputting control information for controlling the division of the plurality of pixels [[(51)]] into the subsets of pixels [[(51)]] and the parameter values of the at least one imaging parameter (…wherein a vision sensor connects to main processor in Fig. 19; Fig. 3 further depicts a more in depth interconnection between the pixel array and event detection/rate controlling of the vision sensor…).
15. Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is rejected for reasons related to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
16. 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.
17. Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2020/0410272 A1) in view of Wong et al. (US 2021/0185264 A1).
18. Regarding claim 8, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 5 (see claim 5 above). Seo does not teach wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to evaluate the previously generated final images [[(F)]] by using a neuronal network (…however, Wong teaches an event based sensor in which a neural network is used to determine if a detected event is relative to a desired object category.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that a neural network is implemented in which object characteristics of a detected object can be analyzed so to determine operating parameters of the image sensor; wherein as such the object recognized can be mapped as a region of interest…).
19. Regarding claim 10, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above). Seo does not further teach wherein
the control unit [[(30)]] is configured to
generate the final images [[(F)]] by using an artificial intelligence model that receives the image data obtained via the at least two subsets(…however, Wong teaches image processing (for data output from an image sensor) through a neural network and artificial intelligence capabilities.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that image processing, as taught by Wong, can be employed for advanced processing capabilities…).
20. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 2020/0410272 A1) in view of Reyserhove et al. (US 2020/0195828 A1).
21. Regarding claim 12, Seo teaches the sensor device [[(10)]] according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above), wherein
the circuitry [[(20)]] is configured to
generate as image data pixel signals indicating intensity values of the received light for each pixel [[(51)]] (…wherein [0101] teaches vision sensor 100 may measure the amount of event signals generated in response to a change in incident light intensity; further [0146] teaches the output of a plurality of frames (FRM1-FRM4) as an event data…).
Though Seo teaches detection conditions, Seo doesn’t further explicitly teach
the at least one imaging parameter is one of pixel exposure time (…however, Reyserhove teaches a programmable pixel array in which [0051] teaches that different regions of an image frame are captured at different exposure periods.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that different exposure times are attributable to different regions of interest thereby having the ability to generate more image frames through shorter exposure times, particularly in a region of interest of object tracking; thereby not using additional resources of processing outside the region of interest…).
Conclusion
22. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE whose telephone number is (703)756-1910. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, TWYLER HASKINS can be reached at (571)272-7406. 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.
/SURAFEL YILMAKASSAYE/Examiner, Art Unit 2639
/TWYLER L HASKINS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2639
Prosecution Insights