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 .
Notice to Applicants
This action is in response to the amendments and remarks filed on 08/21/2025.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Corrective Actions by Applicant
Claims 1-13 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has fully considered Applicant’s presented arguments.
On page 10 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims avoid any invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f). This is persuasive. The 112(f) interpretation of the claims has been withdrawn, except for the following claim limitations below.
There are three claim limitations that, after the present claim amendments, still invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) in the manner described in the non-final office action dated 05/21/2025:
Claim 9, line 3, “calculation section”,
Claim 11, line 3, “distance calculation section”,
Claim 13, line 10, “acquisition section”.
It is believed that Applicant intended to also replace the above terms with language indicating that the circuitry performs the related functions.
The examiner attempted to contact Applicant’s representative to resolve the above issues on 09/18/2025, but no response was received as of 09/27/2025.
On pages 10-14 of the remarks, Applicant argues that the amended claims are directed to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner does concede that the independent claim limitation of “acquire a signal value of a corresponding pixel where a same target is located in each of multiple frames which are obtained when a subject is photographed over multiple time sections” is not a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind, and is thus not directed to an abstract idea.
However, the independent claim limitation of “calculate a distance between a photographing position and the target based on the acquired signal values” is still recited at a high level of generality without specifying how the distance is calculated, such that the action can be properly performed in human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Additionally, the claim only requires the signal value of a single pixel across frames, which is not impractical to process in the human mind or with pen and paper. Thus, this limitation is still directed to a mental process.
The examiner recognizes the benefits of the disclosed invention, such as how it solves the problems discussed in at least paragraphs 0004-0005 and 0046 of the specification related to challenges related to depth estimation. For example, at least paragraphs 0057-0058 discuss how using a two-tap sensor and averaging the obtained microframes reduces distortion caused by phase differences. For example, at least paragraph 0074 discusses how using differential signal values can improve the distance calculation accuracy.
However, the invention as claimed in the independent claims does not reflect the disclosed improvements to the functioning of a computer. More specifically, although the independent claims recite the collection of the multiple signal values according to the varying phase shifts, the claim does not specify how these signal values are used in the distance calculation.
Upon consideration of the amended claims, the examiner has determined that claims 2-10 do reflect disclosed improvements, and are thus directed to statutory subject matter (see updated 101 rejections below).
On pages 14-17 of the remarks, Applicant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion in Sawachi of the presently claimed subject matter of amended claim 1. The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Sawachi relates to a ranging apparatus using modulated light to determine depth/distance estimations using target images.
Figure 2, pixels 46 and paragraph 0065 specify that pixels corresponding to a target object are obtained; paragraph 075 describes how amplitudes/signal values are obtained from said pixels.
Paragraphs 0083-0089 specify that reflected light is obtained to create frames at sequential points in time/time sections.
Paragraphs 0137-0138 recite calculating distance values using said amplitudes.
Paragraph 0085 specifies how an exposure period/opening and closing pattern is used to shift the phase of acquired signal values by a one-quarter cyclic period each frame.
See the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) rejection of claim 1 below for updated and clarified mappings and comments.
On pages 17-23 of the remarks, Applicant argues that none of Stobbe, Hyun, Kim, Kang, or Hallet remedy the deficiencies of Sawachi regarding claim 1. The examiner respectfully contends that these arguments are rendered moot by the response to the above argument.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, in line 3, the term “calculation section” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, in line 3, the term “distance calculation section” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
Regarding claim 13, in line 10, the term “acquisition section” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
As discussed above, it is believed that Applicant intended to also replace the above terms with language indicating that the circuitry performs the related functions.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Analysis for claim 1 is provided in the following. Claim 1 is reproduced in the following (annotation added):
An information processing device comprising:
circuitry configured to
acquire a signal value of a corresponding pixel where a same target is located in each of multiple frames which are obtained when a subject is photographed over multiple time sections;
and calculate a distance between a photographing position and the target based on the acquired signal values,
wherein the circuitry acquires the signal value in accordance with an opening and closing pattern for controlling a phase shift of the acquired signal value with respect to an emitted wave emitted when the subject is photographed,
and wherein the opening and closing pattern causes the phase shift to vary over the multiple time sections.
Step 1: Does the claim belong to one of the statutory categories? Claim 1 is directed to a machine, which is a statutory category of invention (YES).
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite a judicial exception? Part d recites the calculation of a distance between a photographing position and a target based on acquired signal values, which is recited at a high level of generality such that the calculation can be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
Step 2A Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? Parts a and b recite a computerized system at a high level of generality, which amounts to mere instructions to use a computer to perform an abstract idea. Parts c, e, and f recite a specific process of acquiring said signal values, but do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (NO).
Step 2B: Does the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception? The claim as a whole recites using a computerized system at a high level of generality to collect signal values using a specific process, and then calculating a distance using said signal values. However, the claim does not specify how these unique signal values are used to calculate the distance, and thus the claim in its present form is not indicative of significantly more than the judicial exception (NO). Claim 1 is not eligible.
Similar analysis is applicable to independent claim 12. Claim 12 is not eligible.
Independent claim 13 recites an additional element of “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon an information processing program, which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a method”, which is regarded as a computerized system at a high level of generality that amounts to instructions to perform a judicial exception using a computer. Claim 13 is not eligible.
Claim 2 further recites calculation of a phase difference between emitted and reflected waves, and calculating the distance between the photographing position and target based on said phase difference, which are mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. However, as this claim meaningfully limits the distance calculation by involving the additional elements of claim 1, it is reflective of the improvements discussed in the specification and thus integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 2 is eligible.
Claim 3 further limits the signal values with no new judicial exceptions. Claim 3 is eligible.
Claim 4 further recites estimation of a signal value based on acquired signal values, and calculation of a phase difference, both of which are mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. However, claim 4 depends on eligible claim 2, which integrates these judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 4 is eligible.
Claim 5 recites detecting pixels corresponding to the same target across multiple frames, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. However, claim 5 depends on eligible claims 2-4, which integrate these detected pixels into a practical application. Claim 5 is eligible.
Claim 6 recites calculating and comparing pixel feature amounts, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. However, claim 6 depends on eligible claims 2-4, which integrate these detected pixels into a practical application. Claim 6 is eligible.
Claim 7 further narrows how the reflected waves are collected, which is not a judicial exception. Claim 7 is eligible.
Claim 8 recites calculating differential signal values and using them to calculate the distance, which are mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. However, similar to eligible claim 2, this claim meaningfully limits the distance calculation by involving the additional elements of claim 1, and is reflective of the improvements discussed in the specification and thus integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 8 is eligible.
Claim 9 recites estimating signal values from differential signal values and using these estimated signal values to calculate the distance, which are mental processes that can be practically performed in the human mind. However, similar to eligible claim 2, this claim meaningfully limits the distance calculation by involving the additional elements of claim 1, and is reflective of the improvements discussed in the specification and thus integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Claim 9 is eligible.
Claim 10 recites converting the reflected wave into an electric signal value, and narrows the photographing position, neither of which are judicial exceptions. Claim 10 is eligible.
Claim 11 further recites calculating a three-dimensional position of the subject based on the distances from the photographing position to multiple targets, which is a mental process that can be practically performed in the human mind. Claim 11 is not eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sawachi (U.S. Publ. US-2008/0231832-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sawachi discloses an information processing device comprising: circuitry (see figure 1)
configured to acquire a signal value of a corresponding pixel (see figure 2, pixels 46 and paragraph 0075, where arrays of amplitudes S1-S4 of pixels of first-fourth frames are stored; these pixels contain pixels that correspond to the target, as they contain reflected light from the target, as specified by paragraph 0065)
where a same target is located in each of multiple frames which are obtained when a subject is photographed over multiple time sections (see figure 8, steps S1-3 and paragraphs 0083-0085, where modulated light is emitted and the reflected light is subsequently captured for each of multiple frames; paragraphs 0086-0089 specify that these frames are obtained sequentially over time; paragraphs 0112 and 0136 state that these steps are equivalent to steps S201-S203 of figure 12);
and calculate a distance between a photographing position and the target based on the acquired signal values (see figure 12, steps S201-S205 and paragraphs 0137-0138, where a phase difference is calculated based on the sampled values S1 to S4 of the frames, and is then used to calculate target to camera distance),
wherein the circuitry acquires the signal value in accordance with an opening and closing pattern for controlling a phase shift of the acquired signal value with respect to an emitted wave emitted when the subject is photographed, and wherein the opening and closing pattern causes the phase shift to vary over the multiple time sections (see paragraph 0085, where the modulated light is emitted and then reflected, and said reflected light is detected while the phase of the exposure period is shifted by a one-quarter cyclic period each frame).
Regarding claim 2, Sawachi discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to calculate a phase difference between the emitted wave emitted when the subject is photographed and a reflected wave resulting from the emitted wave (see figure 12, step S204 and paragraph 0137, where a phase difference is calculated based on the sampled values S1 to S4 of the frames) based on the signal value of the corresponding pixel in each of the multiple frames (see paragraph 0075, where arrays of amplitudes S1-S4 of pixels of first-fourth frames are stored; these pixels contain pixels that correspond to the target, as they contain reflected light from the target, as specified by paragraphs 0002 and 0009), and wherein the circuitry calculates the distance between the photographing position and the target based on the phase difference (see figure 12, step S205 and paragraph 0138, where the phase difference is used to calculate target to camera distance).
Regarding claim 3, Sawachi discloses wherein, from the reflected wave having arrived in at least one time section of the multiple time sections, the circuitry acquires, as a signal value of the corresponding pixel in a frame acquired in the at least one time section, a signal value containing a first component with respect to the emitted wave (see paragraph 0075, where the first and third frames, obtained at first and third time sections, respectively, have signal components that are offset by 0° and 180°, respectively, and are thus in-phase or first components), and wherein, from the reflected wave having arrived in another one of the time sections, the circuitry acquires, as a signal value of the corresponding pixel in a frame acquired in the other time section, a signal value containing a second component that is orthogonal to the first component with respect to the emitted wave (see paragraph 0075, where the second and fourth frames, obtained at second and fourth time sections, respectively, have signal components that are offset by 90° and 270°, respectively, and are thus Q-components or second components).
Regarding claim 10, Sawachi discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to convert the reflected wave to an electric signal value (see paragraph 0074), and wherein the photographing position is a position of a sensor configured to receive the reflected wave (see paragraph 0074, where the pixels that are analyzed to determine distance are obtained from and represent the position of the image capturing device/sensor 28).
Regarding claim 12, Sawachi discloses an information processing method that is performed by a computer (see figure 12).
The remainder of claim 12 recites steps identical to those recited in claim 1. Therefore, Sawachi anticipates claim 12 as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 13, Sawachi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having embodied thereon an information processing program (see figure 1), which when executed by a computer causes the computer to execute a method (see figure 12).
The remainder of claim 13 recites steps identical to those recited in claim 1. Therefore, Sawachi anticipates claim 13 as applied to claim 1 above.
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawachi (U.S. Publ. US-2008/0231832-A1) in view of Stobbe et al. (European Patent EP-1696245-A2).
Regarding claim 4, Sawachi discloses wherein, for each of two or more time sections of the multiple time sections, the circuitry acquires a signal value containing the first component with respect to the emitted wave from the reflected wave having arrived in each of the two or more time sections (see paragraph 0075, where the first and third frames, obtained at first and third time sections, respectively, have signal components that are offset by 0° and 180°, respectively, and are thus in-phase or first components),
the signal value being a value that could be acquired from the reflected wave having arrived in the other time section (see paragraph 0075, where signal values could be obtained from reflected waves),
Sawachi fails to disclose wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate, based on the signal values acquired in the respective two or more time sections, a signal value containing the first component with respect to the emitted wave, and wherein the circuitry calculates the phase difference between the emitted wave and the reflected wave based on the estimated signal value containing the first component and the acquired signal value containing the second component from the reflected wave having arrived in the other time section, and calculates the distance between the photographing position and the target based on the phase difference.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Stobbe discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to estimate, based on the signal values acquired in the respective two or more time sections, a signal value containing the first component with respect to the emitted wave (see paragraphs 0048, 0069, and 0071-0072, where both in-phase channels / first components and quadrature-phase channels / second components are averaged over several evaluation periods), and wherein the circuitry calculates the phase difference between the emitted wave and the reflected wave based on the estimated signal value containing the first component and the acquired signal value containing the second component from the reflected wave having arrived in the other time section (see paragraph 0072, where the averaged first and second component channels are used to determine phase position and resulting amplitude), and calculates the distance between the photographing position and the target based on the phase difference (see paragraph 0012, where a difference in the phase position is used to determine distance between a detection plate and the reader).
Sawachi and Stobbe are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to obtaining depth images via time-of-flight methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Stobbe into Sawachi because averaging the signal components reduces noise and improves measurement accuracy (see Stobbe paragraph 0049).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawachi (U.S. Publ. US-2008/0231832-A1) in view of Stobbe et al. (European Patent EP-1696245-A2), and further in view of Hyun et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2021/0019910-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Sawachi in view of Stobbe fails to disclose the limitations of claim 5.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hyun discloses wherein the circuitry is further configured to detect, as the corresponding pixels, pixels where the same target is located in the respective multiple frames (see figures 5-6 and paragraphs 0015-0016, where pixels corresponding to objects across frames are identified).
Sawachi and Hyun are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to obtaining depth images via image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hyun into Sawachi and Stobbe because combining depth information with object detection across multiple frames improves 3D reconstructions of subjects (see Hyun paragraph 0025).
Regarding claim 6, Sawachi in view of Stobbe fails to disclose the limitations of claim 6.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hyun discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to execute, for each of pixels constituting one frame, a process of calculating a feature amount of each of the pixels constituting the one frame and detecting, in another frame, a pixel having a feature amount equal to or close to the calculated feature amount of the pixel (see paragraphs 0057-0068, where pixels across frames are assigned similarity scores based on their appearances and/or locations, and a bijective correspondence between objects across frames is determined based on these similarities), and wherein the circuitry is further configured to regard, as the corresponding pixels where the same target is located, one of the pixels constituting the one frame and a pixel detected in the other frame (see paragraph 0025).
Sawachi and Hyun are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to obtaining depth images via image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hyun into Sawachi and Stobbe because combining depth information with object detection across multiple frames improves 3D reconstructions of subjects (see Hyun paragraph 0025).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawachi (U.S. Publ. US-2008/0231832-A1) in view of Stobbe et al. (European Patent EP-1696245-A2), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2021/0373163-A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sawachi in view of Stobbe fails to disclose the limitations of claim 7.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Kim discloses wherein, in a case where the subject is photographed over the multiple time sections, the circuitry acquires, in each of the time sections, two frames in which phases of the reflected waves are shifted by 180 degrees from each other (see paragraphs 0006-0007, where during a first period, reception pixels obtain light at 0° and 180° phase time points, and then during a second period, the reception pixels obtain light at 90° and 270° phase time points; see paragraph 0089, where during each period/time section, both 0° and 180° phase images are obtained, as well as 90° and 270° phase images), and wherein the circuitry acquires the signal value of the corresponding pixel in each of the two frames (see paragraph 0091, where the signal values are obtained and integrated over time to obtain a depth image).
Sawachi and Kim are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to obtaining depth images via time-of-flight methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Kim into Sawachi and Stobbe because doing so allows for obtaining depth information of an object (see Kim paragraph 0019).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawachi (U.S. Publ. US-2008/0231832-A1) in view of Stobbe et al. (European Patent EP-1696245-A2), Kim et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2021/0373163-A1), and further in view of Kang et al. (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0334376-A1).
Regarding claim 8, Sawachi in view of Stobbe and Kim fails to disclose the limitations of claim 8.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Kang discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to calculate, for each of the time sections in which the two frames are acquired, a differential signal value which indicates a difference between the signal values in the corresponding pixel in the respective two frames (see paragraph 0060, where difference images are obtained by subtracting a 180° phase image from a 0° phase image, and subtracting a 270° phase image from a 90° phase image, and then eliminating noise from both of these difference images), and wherein the circuitry calculates the distance between the photographing position and the target based on the calculated differential signal value obtained by the difference calculation section (see paragraphs 0061-0065, where a depth image is then obtained using the above noise-eliminated images).
Sawachi and Kang are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to obtaining depth images via time-of-flight methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Kang into Sawachi, Stobbe and Kim because improves depth image accuracy (see Kang paragraph 0065).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sawachi (U.S. Publ. US-2008/0231832-A1) in view of Hallet (U.S. Publ. US-2015/0363936-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Sawachi fails to disclose the limitations of claim 11.
Pertaining to the same field of endeavor, Hallet discloses wherein the distance calculation section calculates a three-dimensional position of the subject based on the distances from the photographing position to multiple targets (see paragraph 0017, where the 3D position of a tip of an object is determined based on calculated distances from the camera to multiple markings/targets of the object).
Sawachi and Hallet are considered analogous art, as they are both directed to obtaining depth images via image processing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have integrated the teachings of Hallet into Sawachi because doing so allows for determining a position of part of an object with high speed and accuracy (see Hallet paragraph 0003).
Examiner Note
After an updated search, claim 9 is still not disclosed by the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103. It is now also considered eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Once the above 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 9 is resolved, claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO whose telephone number is (703)756-5539. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/NICHOLAS JOHN HELCO/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667