DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The arguments are directed to amended claims. The amendment fails to overcome the prior art applied. The claim rejections have been updated to reflect the claim amendment. See below for detail.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon et al., US 20080118143 A1 (“Gordon”), in view of Takabayashi, US 20130046506 A1 (“Takabayashi”).
Regarding claim 1, Gordon teaches a controller (Figs. 1A-G, [0309], system 10) configured to:
generate a single symbol pattern (Fig. 2, [0320], step 70, Fig. 6A, [0344], 2x10 matrix pattern 90);
generate a point grid of locations of symbols of the single symbol pattern determine epipolar lines for respective subsets of points of the point grid (Fig. 6A shows the grid, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], together discloses epipolar lines, reference feature coordinates from calibrated images stored in database 40);
instruct an SLM to project the single symbol pattern such that respective subsets of the symbols lie on respective epipolar lines (Figs. 1A-G, Fig. 2, step 72; Fig. 4);
obtain an image of a reflection of the single symbol pattern (Fig. 2, step 74; Fig. 4, step 74, [0338], 2D image 84);
determine a first location of a symbol in the image along a first epipolar line of the epipolar lines (Fig. 2, Step 76, Fig. 4, epipolar line E1; Fig. 6A shows epipolar lines 102A-C; first location at feature A on E1);
determine a second location of the symbol in the image along the first epipolar line (Fig. 4, second location at feature B on E1); and
determine a depth of the symbol based on the first and second locations along the first epipolar line (Fig. 4, [0338], depth determination from relative locations on epipolar line).
Gordon discloses depth determination on epipolar lines using triangulation techniques, but fails to expressly teach determining depth on epipolar line based on an essential matrix. However, Takabayashi, US 20130046506 A1 (“Takabayashi”) teaches determining depth on epipolar line based on an essential matrix (Fig. 7, [0076]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied Takabayashi’s teach to Gordon’s system to apply an essential matrix for depth determination on epipolar lines as doing so is simply applying known method to known device to produce a predictable result of determining 3D coordinates of detected objects.
Regarding claim 2, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the controller of claim 1, further configured to determine the essential matrix based on a difference in rotation and translation between a camera and the SLM, the camera used to obtain the image of the reflection of the symbol pattern (Takabayashi, Fig. 7, [0077]).
Regarding claim 3, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein to determine the epipolar lines, an initial epipolar line is determined based on a location of a select point of the point grid (Fig. 6A shows the grid, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], together discloses epipolar lines, reference feature coordinates from calibrated images stored in database 40, Fig. 6A, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], reference feature coordinates on epipolar lines from calibrated images are pre-determined and stored in database 40).
Regarding claim 4, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the controller of claim 1, wherein each subset of symbols includes symbols that differentiate a first occurrence of a symbol on the respective epipolar line from a second occurrence of the symbol on the respective epipolar line (Gordon, Fig. 6B, [0349]).
Regarding claim 5, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the controller of claim 1, further configured to search along a particular epipolar line to differentiate a first occurrence of a symbol from a second occurrence of the symbol on the particular epipolar line (Gordon, Fig. 6B, [0349]) .
Regarding claim 6, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the controller of claim 1, further configured to determine the depth of the symbol as a result of solving for a depth coordinate in an equation wherein a dot product of a transpose of the first location, the essential matrix, and the second location is equal to zero (Takabayashi, [0076], eq. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Gordon, teaches a system (Figs. 1A-G, [0309], system 10) comprising:
a spatial light modulator (SLM) configured to project a single symbol pattern (Figs. 1A-G, [0309], projector 12 and encoded bi-dimensional light pattern 16) such that respective subsets of symbols of the single symbol pattern lie on respective epipolar lines determined based on a point grid of locations of the symbols of the single symbol pattern (Fig. 2; Fig. 6A shows the grid; Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], epipolar lines);
a camera ([0309], image apparatus 14) configured to obtain an image of a reflection of the symbol pattern (Fig. 2, step 74; Fig. 4, step 74, [0338], 2D image 84);
a controller ([0317], imaging processing device 36) coupled to the SLM and the camera, the controller configured to:
determine a first location of a symbol in the image along a first epipolar line of the epipolar lines (Fig. 2, Step 76, Fig. 4, epipolar line E1; Fig. 6A shows epipolar lines 102A-C; first location at feature A on E1);
determine a second location of the symbol in the image along the first epipolar line (Fig. 4, second location at feature B on E1); and
determine a depth of the symbol based on the first and second locations along the first epipolar line (Fig. 4, [0338], depth determination from relative locations on epipolar line).
Gordon discloses depth determination on epipolar lines using triangulation techniques, but fails to expressly teach determining depth on epipolar line based on an essential matrix. However, Takabayashi teaches determining depth on epipolar line based on an essential matrix (Fig. 7, [0076]).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have applied Takabayashi’s teach to Gordon’s system to apply an essential matrix for depth determination on epipolar lines as doing so is simply applying known method to known device to produce a predictable result of determining 3D coordinates of detected objects.
Regarding claim 8, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the system of claim 7, the controller further configured to determine the essential matrix based on a difference in rotation and translation between the camera and the SLM (Takabayashi, Fig. 7, [0076]).
Regarding claim 9, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the system of claim 7, the controller further configured to wherein to determine the epipolar lines, an initial epipolar line is determined based on a location of a select point of the point grid (Fig. 6A shows the grid, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], discloses epipolar lines, reference feature coordinates from calibrated images stored in database 40, Fig. 6A, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], reference feature coordinates on epipolar lines from calibrated images are pre-determined and stored in database 40).
Regarding claim 11, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the system of claim 7, wherein each subset of symbols includes symbols that differentiate a first occurrence of a symbol on the respective epipolar line from a second occurrence of the symbol on the respective epipolar line (Gordon, Fig. 6B, [0349]).
Regarding claim 12, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the system of claim 7, the controller further configured to search along a particular epipolar to differentiate a first occurrence of a symbol from a second occurrence of the symbol on the particular epipolar line (Gordon, Fig. 6B, [0349]).
Regarding claim 13, Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi, teaches the system of claim 7, the controller further configured to determine the depth of the symbol as a result of solving for a depth coordinate in an equation wherein a dot product of a transpose of the first location, the essential matrix, and the second location is equal to zero (Takabayashi, [0076], eq. 9).
Claims 14-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gordon, in view of Takabayashi, and further in view of Tzeng, US 20180022266 A1 (“Tzeng”).
Regarding claim 14, it recites substantially the same limitations of claim 7. Additionally, it requires a vehicle comprising:
a headlight comprising: [the system of claim 7].
Gordon, as modified in view of Takabayashi teaches the system of claim 7, but fails to teach such a system being used in a vehicle headlight.
On the other hand, Tzeng teaches incorporating a SLM kind of image sensor in a vehicle (Fig. 1, [0031], [0032], [0035]).
It would have been obvious for one skilled in the art to have applied Tzeng’s teach to use the image sensor taught by Gordon and Takabayashi in a vehicle headlight. A skilled art would simply have applied known technique to a known device to produce a predictable result. Here a vehicle would have an improved depth detection resolution.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Gordon, Takabayashi and Tzeng teaches the vehicle of claim 14, the controller further configured to determine the essential matrix based on a difference in rotation and translation between the camera and the SLM (Takabayashi, [0076]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Gordon, Takabayashi and Tzeng teaches the vehicle of claim 14, wherein, to determine the epipolar lines, an initial epipolar line is determined based on a location of a select point of the point grid (Fig. 6A shows the grid, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], discloses epipolar lines, reference feature coordinates from calibrated images stored in database 40, Fig. 6A, Fig. 4, [0334], [0338], reference feature coordinates on epipolar lines from calibrated images are pre-determined and stored in database 40).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Gordon, Takabayashi and Tzeng teaches the vehicle of claim 14, wherein each subset of symbols includes symbols that differentiate a first occurrence of a symbol on the respective epipolar line from a second occurrence of the symbol on the respective epipolar line (Gordon, Fig. 6B, [0349]).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Gordon, Takabayashi and Tzeng teaches the vehicle of claim 14, further configured to search along a particular epipolar line to differentiate a first occurrence of a symbol from a second occurrence of the symbol on the particular epipolar line (Gordon, Fig. 6B, [0349]).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Gordon, Takabayashi and Tzeng, teaches the vehicle of claim 14, further configured to determine the depth of the symbol as a result of solving for a depth coordinate in an equation wherein a dot product of a transpose of the first location, the essential matrix, and the second location is equal to zero (Takabayashi, [0076]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure as follows. Applicant is reminded that in amending in response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR § 1.111(c).
US 20240135674 A1 discloses essential matrix (Abstract, Fig. 5).
US 10360247 B2 discloses SLM detection using epipolar lines and essential matrix (Fig. 6, Col. 13).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUQING XIAO whose telephone number is (571)270-3603. The examiner can normally be reached on 8AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Joseph Thomas can be reached at (571)272-8004. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-2730-4603.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights