Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
2. The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claims 15-20 have been renumbered 14-19, respectively.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 11-12 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claim(s) 1, 3, 15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Steinberg et al. (US 2019/0227175) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Steinberg”.
As per claim 1, Steinberg discloses a method of three-dimensional (3D) scanning (paragraph 0007), the method comprising:
transmitting light from a light source according to a scanning pattern (paragraph 0052, FIG. 2A illustrates an example of a bi-static configuration of LIDAR system 100 in which projecting unit 102 includes a single light source 112), the light incident upon a surface under inspection and scattered thereby (paragraph 0053, The projected light is projected towards an outbound deflector 114A that functions as a steering element for directing the projected light in field of view 120. In this example, scanning unit 104 also include a pivotable return deflector 114B that direct photons (reflected light 206) reflected back from an object 208 within field of view 120 toward sensor 116);
detecting at least a portion of the light scattered by the surface (FIG. 3C; paragraph 0078, Reflector array 312 may also be part of a return path for light reflected from a surface of an object located within an illumined portion of field of view 120. Specifically, reflector array 312 may direct reflected light 206 towards sensor 116 or towards asymmetrical deflector 216; paragraph 0085, Typically, as shown in the figure, only a portion of the photons reflected from object 208A enters optional optical window 124);
determining, as a function of the detected light, a distance between the light source and the surface (paragraph 0056, By comparing characteristics of a light pulse with characteristics of corresponding reflections, a distance and possibly a physical characteristic, such as reflected intensity of object 212 may be estimated; paragraph 0082, For example, by comparing a time when projected light 204 was emitted by light source 112 and a time when sensor 116 received reflected light 206, a distance between object 208 and LIDAR system 100 may be determined);
dynamically varying an angle at which the light is transmitted relative to a predefined coordinate system (paragraph 0031, In another example, the LIDAR system may be used for detecting a plurality of objects in an environment of a vehicle or within a predefined horizontal range (e.g., 25°, 50°, 100°, 180°, etc.), and up to a predefined vertical elevation (e.g., ±10°, ±20°, +40°-20°, ±90° or 0°-90°); paragraph 0111, Consistent with other embodiments, processing unit 108 may control only at least one light source 112 and light deflector 114 may be moved or pivoted in a fixed predefined pattern) based on the determined distance to repeatedly define scan areas on the surface, the scan areas being adjacent each other (paragraph 0056, By repeating this process across multiple adjacent portions 122, in a predefined pattern (e.g., raster, Lissajous or other patterns) an entire scan of field of view 120 may be achieved) and substantially equal in size (see the size of the scan area element 122 in FIG. 1A).
As per claim 3, Steinberg discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the adjacent scan areas are triangles (paragraph 0037, Disclosed embodiments may involve obtaining information for use in generating reconstructed three-dimensional models. Examples of types of reconstructed three-dimensional models which may be used include point cloud models, and Polygon Mesh (e.g. a triangle mesh)).
As per claim 15, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 1 are applicable for claim 15; in addition, Steinberg teaches A LIDAR scanner (paragraph 0007) comprising…a scan processor (paragraph 0114, In Diagram B, processor 118 may control the operation of light source 112 in a manner such that during scanning of field of view 120 light pulses in different intensities are projected towards a single portion 122 of field of view 120; paragraph 0123, Processing unit 108 may use the obtained information to determine a scanning scheme for scanning the different portion of field of view 120); and a memory device storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the scan processor, configure the scan processor to perform the claimed method (paragraph 0044, The instructions executed by at least one processor may, for example, be pre-loaded into a memory integrated with or embedded into the controller or may be stored in a separate memory).
As per claim 17, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 3 are applicable for claim 17.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
8. Claim(s) 2, 7-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al. (US 2019/0227175) in view of Yu et al. “A rapid 3D seed-filling algorithm based on scan slice” cited in IDS, hereinafter “Yu”.
As per claim 2, Steinberg discloses the method of claim 1; however, Steinberg does not explicitly disclose wherein the scanning pattern initially defines one or more the scan areas on the surface, the initially defined scan areas comprising seed areas.
In the same field of endeavor, Yu discloses wherein the scanning pattern initially defines one or more the scan areas on the surface, the initially defined scan areas comprising seed areas (FIG. 6, page 452, col right, lines 23-25, Step 1: an initial seed is selected to search a connective and closed region on slice Zp by using the above improved 2D scan line seed-filling algorithm, as shown in Fig. 6(Step1)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the seed area of Yu with the method of Steinberg in order to reduce operation time consumption (page 452, col left, lines 23-25).
As per claim 7, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 1-2 are applicable for claim 7. In addition, Steinberg discloses transmitting the light incident upon the surface at the adjacent polygons according to the adapted scanning pattern (paragraphs 0039 and 0041).
As per claim 8, arguments analogous to those applied for the last limitation of claim 1 are applicable for claim 8.
As per claim 16, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 2 are applicable for claim 16.
9. Claim(s) 4-6 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al. (US 2019/0227175) in view of Migdal et al. (US 5,991,437) cited in IDS, hereinafter “Migdal”.
As per claim 4, Steinberg discloses the method of claim 3; however, Steinberg does not explicitly disclose wherein transmitting the light comprises aiming the light in a direction defined by an angle of each triangle corner relative to horizontal and/or vertical.
In the same field of endeavor, Migdal discloses wherein transmitting the light comprises aiming the light in a direction defined by an angle of each triangle corner relative to horizontal and/or vertical (FIG. 4a; col 11, In 54-56 "FIG. 4a provides an exemplary depiction of such data collection by triangulation for point 184 on the object 101."; col 12, In 10-13 "Every point (e.g.184) on the laser stripe 182 which is visible from the camera and at the same time is lighted by the plan of light 180, can be found as an intersection of a plane with the line."; col 12, lines 45-46, The value r is the three dimensional (X, Y, Z) coordinate for the point 184 on the object; col 12 lines 62-66, An X axis 176 directs through the origin, perpendicular to the Z axis on a horizontal plane depicted by the page of the figure drawing. A Y axis (not shown) directs through the origin vertically from and perpendicular to the X and Z axes).
Therefore, It would have been obvious for one having skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the transmitting light method of Migdal with the scanning method of Steinberg in order to provide high accuracy to 3D scanning systems (col 16, lines 22-26). This rationale applies to all combinations of Steinberg and Migdal used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
As per claim 5, Migdal discloses assigning coordinates to positions on the surface based on the angle at which the light is transmitted relative to the predefined coordinate system and the determined distance from the light source to the surface (FIG. 3, 4a and 4d; col 12, lines 2-9, Light from various points along the laser stripe 182 (such as light ray 186 from point 184) reflects at an angle from the laser stripe position and moves toward an image collector such as the image collector 118 from FIG. 3. The reflected light ray travels through the lens across the focal point 187 and its energy activates one or more pixels at a location 177 on the photocollector (e.g., CCD chip) 136 of the image collector; col 12, lines 45-51, The value r is the three dimensional (X,Y.Z) coordinate for the point 184 on the object. The above equations and the techniques of finding the 3D X,Y,Z coordinates based on the intersection of line 186 and reflected plane of light 180 depend on the relative positions of the light plane, light positioner, light generator and image collector).
As per claim 6, Migdal discloses wherein the scan areas are triangles and the assigned coordinates represent corners of the triangles (FIG. 8; col 21, lines 29-32, Upon the object 1, one of its geometric shapes is addressed. FIG. 8 shows the path of the light rays as they travel from the vertices 808, 810, 812 of the triangle to the image collector 118; col 21, lines 56-62, The function: r=.lambda.r.sub.0 provides the 3D location of each vertex (808,810,812) on the ray defined by the equation r=.lambda.r.sub.0 above, where .lambda. is a scalar value for the ray).
As per claims 18-20, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 4-6 are applicable for claims 18-20.
10. Claim(s) 9-10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg et al. (US 2019/0227175) in view of Migdal et al. (US 5,991,437) in further view of Yu et al. “A rapid 3D seed-filling algorithm based on scan slice”.
As per claims 9-10, arguments analogous to those applied for claims 5-6 are applicable for claims 9-10.
As per claim 13, arguments analogous to those applied for claim 4 are applicable for claim 13.
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20210327078, US 20200363514, US 20200132851, US 20200033454, US 20180231644, US 20150373321, US 20210088631, US 20190107607, US 20240264313, US 20200256960, US 20190310351)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED JEBARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 09:00am-06:00pm.
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, Chris Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/MOHAMMED JEBARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482