DETAILED ACTION
I. 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 .
II. Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 365(c) or 386(c) is acknowledged.
III. Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 5 recites “…a detection signal generated on a basis of amplitudes and phases of at least two frequencies included in the peak frequency.” Facially, the italicized phrase does not make sense. Two frequencies are not included in one frequency. Logically, one frequency can only include one frequency. However, after consulting the specification, the examiner’s best understanding of this phrase is that the detection signal is based on at least two harmonics of the peak frequency. If this is true, the examiner would suggest amending claim to recite “…a detection signal generated on a basis of amplitudes and phases of at least two harmonics of the peak frequency.”
IV. 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 1-4,6,8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bury et al. (US 2023/0412930 A1) in view of Cannillo et al. (US # 12,088,925 B1).
As to claim 1, Bury et al. teaches a signal processing circuit (Fig. 3, digital processing/processor “104”; [0065]) that processes event signals ([0063]) that are generated by an event-based vision sensor (EVS) (Fig. 3, event-based sensor “102”) and each indicate a polarity of a luminance change event ([0073], lines 9-12) for each pixel ([0090], lines 1-7), the signal processing circuit comprising:
a memory for storing a program code ([0087], lines 5-8); and
a processor for executing operations in accordance with the program code ([0088], lines 1 and 2), wherein
the operations include:
detecting a time change cycle of the event signals (e.g., Fig. 10, step “412”; [0161], lines 1-9), and
filtering the event signals according to a result of detecting the time change cycle (e.g., Figs. 11 and 12 in combination with step “414” of Fig. 10, noting specifically steps “492-496” of Fig. 12).
Claim 1 differs from Bury et al. in that it requires that, rather than simply a time change cycle of the event signals, the processor detects a time change cycle of a ratio of the polarity indicated by the event signals generated for each predetermined period of time. Bury et al. does not specifically disclose how the flicker/recurring interval is determined, only disclosing the implementation of “a counter to determine whether a number of valid periods detected is above a threshold value” ([0161], lines 7-9). However, in the same field of endeavor as the instant application, Cannillo et al. teaches event-based processing circuitry for detecting a flicker frequency using event-based sensor signals (Fig. 1, event-based processing circuit “108”). For each of a plurality of predetermined periods of times (Fig. 4, “Tframe”; col. 8, lines 34-36), the difference between a number of positive events and a number of negative events is tallied (Fig. 5; {The examiner reads the claimed ratio of the polarity as the difference between the number of positive events and the number of negative events.}). Spectral analysis is then performed on the differences to determine a dominant frequency at which a difference amplitude is highest (Fig. 6; col. 9, lines 16-26). Furthermore, Cannillo et al. discloses that the dominant frequency can be validated by comparing its difference amplitude to a threshold and accepting that frequency as a flicker frequency if its difference amplitude is greater than the threshold (col. 9, lines 30-37).
In light of the teaching of Cannillo et al., the examiner submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use Cannillo’s method, based on differences between the number of positive and negative events during predetermined periods of time, to determine whether a recurring/flicker pattern is present in Bury’s event stream and to apply ticks and establish tick neighborhoods when a pattern is reliably detected (see Bury et al., [0114] and [0115]). As Cannillo et al. notes in col. 9, lines 23-30, subtracting positive and negative events improves the reliability of the flicker detection by removing common mode noise from events. Moreover, validation of the flicker frequency prevents false positive determination of a flicker frequency, which can erroneously lead to filtering of desired events when applied in Bury’s system.
As to claim 2, Bury et al., as modified by Cannillo et al., teaches the signal processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein:
the polarity includes positive and negative polarities (see Bury et al., [0073], lines 9-12; see Cannillo et al., Figs. 5 and 6);
the detecting the time change cycle includes performing frequency analysis of a time
change in a difference between an amount of positive event signals and an amount of negative event signals generated for each predetermined period of time (see Cannillo et al., Figs. 5 and 6; col. 8, lines 34-36; and col. 9, lines 16-26); and
the filtering includes filtering the event signals when a peak frequency is detected in the
frequency analysis (see Bury et al., Fig. 10, step “412”; Fig. 12, steps “482” and “490-496”; see Cannillo et al., col. 9, lines 16-26).
As to claim 3, Bury et al., as modified by Cannillo et al., teaches the signal processing circuit according to claim 2, wherein
the filtering includes filtering out either the positive event signals or the negative event signals in
accordance with the peak frequency (see Bury et al., Fig. 10, step “412”; Fig. 12, steps “482” and “490-496”; see Cannillo et al., col. 9, lines 16-26; {Bury et al. notes that both positive and negative events are detected and discloses filtering of events. Therefore, Bury et al. necessarily filters positive and/or negative events.}).
As to claim 4, Bury et al., as modified by Cannillo et al., teaches the signal processing circuit according to claim 3, wherein
the filtering includes filtering out either the positive event signals or the negative event signals within a predetermined phase range based on a phase of a frequency with a maximum amplitude
included in the peak frequency (see Bury et al., Fig. 6, neighborhood “220a-220b” and Fig. 12, step “492”; {Bury’s neighborhood is a temporal neighborhood. Therefore, filtering within the vicinity of tick “202c” (i.e., within the filtering neighborhood) is filtering events corresponding to a neighboring phase range along the flicker waveform.}).
As to claim 6, Bury et al., as modified by Cannillo et al., teaches the signal processing circuit according to claim 1, wherein:
the polarity includes positive and negative polarities (see Bury et al., [0073], lines 9-12; see Cannillo et al., Figs. 5 and 6), and
the filtering includes filtering out either positive event signals or negative event signals (see Bury et al., Fig. 12, steps “492-496”; {Bury et al. notes that both positive and negative events are detected and discloses filtering of events. Therefore, Bury et al. necessarily filters positive and/or negative events.}).
Claim 8 is a method claim reciting features and steps substantially similar to the features of processor functions of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected as detailed above.
As Bury et al. discloses a computer-readable medium storing processor-executable instructions for accomplishing the reference’s functions ([0186]), the examiner submits that this disclosure as well as the combination of Bury et al. and Cannillo et al. detailed above in claim 1 satisfy the limitations of claim 9.
V. Allowable Subject Matter
A. Claim 7 is 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 the examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The examiner has been unable to find a reference that discloses filtering either positive or negative events based on which is larger in number.
B. Claim 5 recites allowable subject matter but will not be officially allowed until the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been resolved. Specifically, the examiner has been unable to find a reference that filters events based on a peak filter frequency and at least two harmonics of that frequency. Cannillo et al. discloses that the dominant frequency can be detected as a harmonic of fundamental frequency. However, Cannillo’s analysis seeks only one frequency, which may be a harmonic. That is, the reference does not consider multiple harmonics of a fundamental frequency and would not lead to satisfying the claimed event filtering based on multiple harmonics.
VI. Additional Pertinent Prior Art
Kanemitsu et al. (US 2025/0386113 A1) teaches another method of flicker detection for an event-based sensor, without the additional step of filtering events. Tornes (US 2021/0067679 A1), Lang et al. (US 2019/0362256 A1), and Lee et al. (US 2018/0032150 A1) each disclose flicker detection and event filtering for an event-based sensor, with Lang et al. and Lee et al. disclosing specific methods of filtering.
VII. Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY J DANIELS whose telephone number is (571) 272-7362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Sinh Tran can be reached at 571-272-7564. 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.
/ANTHONY J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2637
7/6/2026
Prosecution Insights