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 statement (IDS) submitted on 09/01/2025 and 06/27/2025 are 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
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.
Claims 21, 31-32 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Priyantha et al. (“Priyantha”, US 2014/0375820).
Regarding claim 21, Priyantha discloses a system comprising:
at least one sensor comprising a plurality of pixels to generate image information for respective regions in a field of view of the at least one sensor (Priyantha: see fig. 1 and par. [0022], wherein sensor 104/108 comprising a plurality of pixels to generate image information for respective regions in a field of view of the at least one sensor); and
at least one processor (102) operatively coupled to the at least one sensor and configured to:
control the at least one sensor to operate in a first mode of operation to provide image information of a particular object in the field of view, wherein the image information has a first resolution (Priyantha: see fig. 1 and pars. [0022]-[0023] and [0032], control sensor 104 to operate in a first mode of operation to provide image information of a particular object in the field of view, wherein the image information has low resolution), and
control the at least one sensor to operate in a second mode of operation to provide at least a portion of an image frame with a second resolution that is higher than the first resolution, wherein the image frame includes the particular object (Priyantha: see fig. 1 and pars. [0023], [0032], [0034], control sensor 108 to operate in a second mode of operation to provide at least a portion of an image frame with high resolution wherein the image frame includes the particular object).
Regarding claim 31, Priyantha discloses the system of claim 21, wherein when operating in the second mode of operation, the at least one sensor provides the image frame including the particular object at the second resolution (Priyantha: see par. [0023]).
Regarding claims 32 and 37, claims 32 and 37 recite the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claim 21.
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 22-24, 27, 30, 33-34 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyantha et al. (“Priyantha”, US 2014/0375820) in view of Hicks (US 10,345,447).
Regarding claim 22, Priyantha discloses the system of claim 21.
Priyantha does not explicitly disclose that the processor is further configured to identify the particular object in prior image information received from the at least one sensor based on a movement detected for the particular object.
However, Hicks teaches that the processor is further configured to identify the particular object in prior image information received from the at least one sensor based on a movement detected for the particular object (Hicks: see fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 43-57, wherein the processor configured to identify the particular object in image information received from DVS sensor based on a movement detected for the particular object).
One would have been modified to include a DVS sensor as taught by Hicks in the apparatus of Priyantha to cut down redundant data, allow flawless motion tracking without blur at high speeds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Hicks with the Priyantha’s system to include that the processor is further configured to identify the particular object in prior image information received from the at least one sensor based on a movement detected for the particular object.
Regarding claim 23, Priyantha in the combination with Hicks discloses the system of claim 22.
Hicks further teaches that the movement of the particular object is detected by identifying a change in an image property of at least one pixel that provides image information of at least a portion of the particular object (Hicks: see fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 43-57).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 22.
Regarding claim 24, Priyantha in the combination with Hicks discloses the system of claim 23.
Hicks further teaches that the change in the image property includes a change in light intensity of the at least one pixel (Hicks: see fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 43-57).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 22.
Regarding claim 27, Priyantha in the combination with Hicks discloses the system of claim 21.
Hicks further teaches the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a dynamic vision sensor (DVS) (Hick: see fig. 4 and col. 7, lines 43-57).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 22.
Regarding claim 30, Priyantha in the combination with Hicks discloses the system of claim 21.
Hicks further teaches that the system is part of a cross-reality system capable of tracking the particular object in a cross-reality environment (Hicks: see col. 18, lines 7).
One would have been modified to include a system as taught by Hicks in the apparatus of Priyantha to monitor environment in real time.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Hicks with the Priyantha’s system to include that the system is part of a cross-reality system capable of tracking the particular object in a cross-reality environment.
Regarding claim 33, Priyantha discloses the method of claim 32.
Priyantha does not explicitly disclose comprising identifying the particular object by detecting a movement in a field of view of the sensor by identifying a change in an image property of at least one pixel; and determining that the at least one pixel provides image information of at least a portion of the particular object.
However, Hicks teaches identifying the particular object by detecting a movement in a field of view of the sensor by identifying a change in an image property of at least one pixel; and determining that the at least one pixel provides image information of at least a portion of the particular object (Hicks: see fig. 4, col. 7, lines 43-57, wherein identifying a particular object by detecting a movement in a field of view 110 of the sensor 105 by identifying a change in an image property of at least one pixel; and determining that the at least one pixel provides image information of at least a portion of the particular object).
One would have been modified to include a teaching as taught by Hicks in the apparatus of Priyantha to cut down redundant data, allow flawless motion tracking without blur at high speeds.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the teachings of Hicks with the Priyantha and Hicks’s system to include identifying the particular object by detecting a movement in a field of view of the sensor by identifying a change in an image property of at least one pixel; and determining that the at least one pixel provides image information of at least a portion of the particular object.
Regarding claim 34, Priyantha in the combination with Hicks discloses the method of claim 33.
Hicks further teaches that the change in the image property includes a change in light intensity of the at least one pixel (Hicks: see fig. 4, col. 7, lines 43-57).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 33.
Regarding claims 38-39, claims 38-39 recite the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claims 33-34.
Claims 25-26, 35-36 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyantha et al. (“Priyantha”, US 2014/0375820) in view of Geng (US 2010/0020254).
Regarding claim 25, Priyantha discloses the system of claim 21.
Priyantha does not explicitly disclose that when operating in the first mode of operation, the at least one sensor provides the image information of a patch of pixels that represent the particular object but does not include image information of pixels outside the patch, the patch of pixels being identified based on a position of the particular object at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time.
Nevertheless, Geng teaches that when operating in the first mode of operation, the at least one sensor provides the image information of a patch of pixels that represent the particular object but does not include image information of pixels outside the patch, the patch of pixels being identified based on a position of the particular object at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time (Geng: see par. [0045], wherein once a target is detected, a target's motion can be tracked over time. The tracking can be used to build a temporal model of activity. As a first step, objects (containing the detected targets) generated by motion detection can be matched from frame-to-frame. A record of each object can be kept with motion parameters. For example, the record may include a trajectory (position and velocity as function of time) in image coordinates).
One would have been modified to include a path as taught by Geng in the apparatus of Priyantha to track the movement of the target.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Geng with the Priyantha’s system to include that when operating in the first mode of operation, the at least one sensor provides the image information of a patch of pixels that represent the particular object but does not include image information of pixels outside the patch, the patch of pixels being identified based on a position of the particular object at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time.
Regarding claim 26, Priyantha in the combination with Geng discloses the system of claim 25.
Geng further teaches that a number of pixels included in the patch changes over time based on a change in size of the particular object as sensed by the at least one sensor (Geng: see par. [0045]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 25.
Regarding claim 35, Priyantha discloses the method of claim 32.
Priyantha does not explicitly disclose comprising
identifying a patch of pixels corresponding to the particular object based on a position of the particular object at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time; and
receiving first image information from the sensor in response to controlling the sensor to operate in the first mode of operation, the first image information including image information of the patch of pixels that represent the particular object but do not include image information of pixels that are outside the patch.
However, Geng teaches identifying a patch of pixels corresponding to the particular object based on a position of the particular object at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time (Geng: see par. [0045], in which identifying a patch of pixels corresponding to the target based on a position of the target at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time); and
receiving first image information from the sensor in response to controlling the sensor to operate in the first mode of operation, the first image information including image information of the patch of pixels that represent the particular object but do not include image information of pixels that are outside the patch (Geng: see par. [0045], see the analysis of claim 21 and the first image information including image information of the patch of pixels that represent the particular object but do not include image information of pixels that are outside the patch).
One would have been modified to include a path as taught by Geng in the apparatus of Priyantha to track the movement of the target.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Geng with the Priyantha’s system to include identifying a patch of pixels corresponding to the particular object based on a position of the particular object at a first time and an estimated trajectory of the particular object subsequent to the first time; and receiving first image information from the sensor in response to controlling the sensor to operate in the first mode of operation, the first image information including image information of the patch of pixels that represent the particular object but do not include image information of pixels that are outside the patch.
Regarding claim 36, Priyantha in the combination with Geng discloses the method of claim 35.
Geng further teaches that a number of pixels included in the patch changes over time based on a change in size of the particular object as sensed by the at least one sensor (Geng: see par. [0045]).
The motivation is the same as that of claim 25.
Regarding claim 40, claim 40 recites the similar subject matter as previously discussed in claim 35.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyantha et al. (“Priyantha”, US 2014/0375820) in view of Muninder et al. (US 2014/0292769).
Regarding claim 29, Priyantha discloses the system of claim 21.
Priyantha does not explicitly disclose that the first resolution is limited to one megapixel.
On the other hand, Muninder teaches that the first resolution is limited to one megapixel. (Muninder: see par. [0060], wherein an example of low resolution may be one megapixel or lower pixel resolution utilized by devices like camera or camcorder for recording multimedia content).
One would have been modified to include a resolution as taught by Muninder in the apparatus of Priyantha to reduce the data for processing.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of Muninder with the Priyantha’s system to include that the first resolution is limited to one megapixel.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Priyantha et al. (“Priyantha”, US 2014/0375820) in view of TeMARV (US. 2018/0350136).
Regarding claim 28, Priyantha discloses the system of claim 21.
Priyantha does not disclose comprising a plenoptic camera that includes the at least one sensor.
On the other hand, TeMARV teaches comprising a plenoptic camera that includes the at least one sensor (TeMARV: see par. [0137], wherein event tracking apparatus 108 may include or be connected to one or more light-field cameras positioned to capture light-field data of the event area 103).
One would have been modified to include a plenoptic camera as taught by TeMARV in the apparatus of Priyantha to have post capture refocusing, 3D depth estimation and an extended depth of field.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the teachings of TeMARV with the Priyantha’s system to include that a plenoptic camera that includes the at least one sensor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAN T H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3452. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-4PM.
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.
/CHAN T NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
/LIN YE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2638
Prosecution Insights