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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
112 rejections are withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (20240114119) in view of Adler (20110234756).
Referring to claim 1, Sato shows a depth estimation method (see figure 7) comprising:
acquiring a plurality of depth maps (see figure 1 Ref S1 also see the depth maps coming from a TOF sensor (figure 1 Ref 1a) and the stereo camera (figure 1 Ref 1b)); and
outputting one output depth map (see figure 7 note the outputted integrated depth map Ref S7) obtained by compositing the plurality of depth maps (see figure 7 Ref S6). However Sato fails to show composting the plurality of depth maps with a lower average difference between distance values of adjacent pixels than in a case of directly using distance values included in the plurality of depth maps.
Alder shows a similar system that shows composting the plurality of depth maps with a lower average difference between distance values of adjacent pixels than in a case of directly using distance values included in the plurality of depth maps (see specifically paragraphs 48-54 note the cost function for a larger difference in potential depth values between a pair of adjacent positions). It would have been obvious to include the composting as shown by Alder because this allows for anti-aliasing and smoothing the composite depth map as taught by Alder.
Referring to claim 2, Sato shows a distance value of a pixel in the output depth map is different from a distance value of a corresponding pixel in each of the plurality of depth maps (see paragraph 125-127 note the output is the standard deviation of both images).
Referring to claim 3, Sato shows the plurality of depth maps include a first depth map and a second depth map, and the depth estimation method further comprises: acquiring the first depth map with use of a ranging sensor; and acquiring the second depth map with use of an image capturing device (note the first depth image is captured by a TOF camera Ref 1a and a second depth image is captured by a stereo camera Ref 1b).
Referring to claim 4, Sato shows the plurality of depth maps include a first depth map and a second depth map, the first depth map is a depth map in which a distance value is missing for at least one pixel, and the second depth map is a depth map not including a missing distance value (see figure 1a and 1b also see paragraph 118 note the erroneous distance that is corrected with a different weighting for every pixel).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Pertaining to the argument that the combination of Sato and Alder fail to show outputting one output depth map obtained by compositing the plurality of depth maps with a lower average difference between distance values of adjacent pixels that in a case of directly using distance values:
As shown above Sato shows outputting a composite depth map (see figure 7 Ref S7). As indicated above Sato fails to show the outputted depth map has with a lower average difference between distance values of adjacent pixels that in a case of directly using distance values.
The examiner cited Alder to show a minimization of the average distances between adjacent values is minimized through the minimization of a cost function (see paragraph 52 note the minimization of the cost function is directly related to the depth of each pixel and the potential depth of the neighboring pixels). Also note the minimization of the cost function includes minimizing the energy function that smooths differences between neighboring locations. The smoothing function of the minimization of the cost function directly lowers the difference between distance values of adjacent pixels. This is the exact purpose of a smoothing function like the minimization of the cost function and minimization of the energy function as show by Alder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 9-12 allowed.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights