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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/06/2026, 12/29/2025, 03/07/2025 and 01/17/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 limitations are: “a window counter unit”, “an on/off counter unit” and “an Identification of Condition (IoC) unit” in claims 11-24.
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 / 103
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.
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 11-14, 16-21, 23-27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2018/0032150 A1, hereinafter “Lee”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lee in view of Nakagawa et al. (US 2022/0172486 A1, hereinafter “Nakagawa”).
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an event-based vision sensor (EVS) (Figs. 1-13, par. [0002]), comprising:
an EVS panel comprising a pixel array, wherein each pixel in the pixel array generates an on-event or an off-event in response to a comparison of an output of sensor signal and a threshold (Figs. 1-3 and par. [0058], [0061]. It should be noted that an on-event is when there is an event detected, and off-event is when there is no event detected. Furthermore, comparison of an output of sensor signal and a threshold is inherent in such an event based sensor of Lee in order to detect if there is an event or no event as disclosed);
a window counter unit that partitions the pixel array into a plurality of windows (215 shown in Fig. 2 and par. [0061]);
an on/off counter unit that counts on-events and off-events occurring for each window of the plurality of windows (par. [0047], [0068] & [0070]); and
an Identification of Condition (IoC) unit (signal processor 120 or 220) that determines whether to discard or flag each of the corresponding windows in accordance with the count (see par. [0060], [0064] wherein each of the windows that is detected as flickering event area is masked (considered as discarding and/or flagging the flickering event area disclosed therein). This can be seen in Fig. 3 and par. [0069] where the flickering event area is masked (removed and replaced with a clear mask as no event) in the final output event frame 320 shown at the bottom of Fig. 3).
In an alternative rejection under 35 U.S.C 103, although Lee teaches discarding or flagging the flickering event area as discussed above and not directly use the word “mask”, this masking feature of a flickering event area is well taught by Nakagawa to reduce or avoid the occurrence of the erroneous detection such as the detection of the object on the road surface and the like on which nothing originally exists, so that it becomes possible to detect the object with higher accuracy as described in paragraph [0176].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Lee and Nakagawa to arrive at the current claim limitation in an alternative configuration for detection of object with higher accuracy as mentioned above.
Regarding claim 12, the combined teaching of Lee and Nakagawa also discloses that the IoC unit is configured to: determine that the corresponding window is a flicker window and mask the window when at least one of: the count is one or more of the on-events in succession; or the count is one or more of the off-events in succession; and determine that the corresponding window is a non-flicker window and let the sensor signal be output from each pixel in the window when the on-events and the off-events are mixed in the count (see Lee, Figs. 1-3 and par. [0061]-[0070]).
Regarding claim 13, as also disclosed by Lee and Nakagawa, the IoC unit is further configure to: determine that the corresponding window is a flicker window when one or more of the on- events in succession and one or more of the off-events in succession continue in the count (see Lee, par. [0070]-[0072]).
Regarding claim 14, it is also seen in the combination of Lee and Nakagawa that a flicker detection (FD) unit configured to: count the on-events and the off-events that are output from the on/off counter unit; increment the count in case of the on-event; decrement the count in case of the off-event; and when the count exceeds a threshold value, determine that the corresponding window is a flicker window and output a result of the determination (see Lee, par. [0062]-[0068] & [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Lee and Nagakawa further discloses a frequency calculation block configured to: calculate a flicker frequency based on a signal output from the IoC unit identifying the on-event and the off-event and a frame rate in operation (see Nakagawa, par. [0146], [0150], [0171]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lee and Nakagawa also discloses that the frequency calculation block is further configured to: compare the calculated flicker frequency with a preset frequency; and the EVS is configured to: determine whether to mask each window in accordance with a result of the comparison (see Nakagawa, par. [0150] & [0176]. Note that the preset frequency is stored and compared to find a match to detect the flicker component).
Regarding claims 18-21, 23 and 24, these claims are also met by the combined teaching of Lee and Nakagawa as discussed in claims 11-14, 16 and 17, respectively.
Regarding claim 25, the subject matter of this claim is also met by the combined teaching of Lee and Nakagawa as discussed in claims 11 and 12.
Regarding claims 26, 27, 29 and 30, these claims are also met by the combined teaching of Lee and Nakagawa as discussed in claims 13, 14, 16 and 17, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15, 22 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art references of record, either alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest: “the IoC unit is further configured to: output a signal when both the on-event and the off-event occur simultaneously, and wherein, the EVS is configured to: calculate a logical sum (OR) of the signal and the result of the determination output from the FD; and determine that the corresponding window is a non-flicker window and let the sensor signal to be output from each pixel in the window according to the logical sum.” as recited in claims 15, 22 and 28.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAN T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7371. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 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, Lin Ye can be reached at 571-272-7372. 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.
/NHAN T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2638