DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s deletion of claims 5 and 9 overcome the 112(a) and 112(b) rejections made in the previous action.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 12-14 distinguish the independent claims from the 103 rejection made utilizing the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen.
Following a new search Claim 1 has been rejected using new reference Fisher (US20220229159) and the other independent claims 12-14 have been rejected using new references Fisher and Piggott (US20200256958). Examiner notes that while applicant’s claim amendments do appear to contain a curved mirror configuration supported by FIGS. 12B-12C as discussed in the interview, leaving the orientation of the curved semi-transmissive mirror (i.e. convex surface oriented toward the emitter) undefined made finding a new reference more straightforward (see FIG. 9D of Fisher). Furthermore, the claims as amended do not require, e.g., a first portion of the emitted light to reflect off the semi-transmissive mirror and a second portion of the reflected light to pass through the semi-transmissive mirror such that both the first and second portions of the emitted light are distributed to the objects in the scene. Failure to claim these configurations without this level of specificity allows configurations such as the one shown in FIG. 9D to be applicable in the rejection of the claims in this action.
Examiner realizes the instant specification lacks support for transmissivity ranges, regardless it should also be noted that upon further consideration a semi-transmissive mirror without any accompanying transmissivity range is not patentably distinguishable from a conventional lens, which is also not 100 percent transmissive. Limitations similar to those suggested above have the advantage of functionally claiming the use of both light passing through and reflecting off the semi-transmissive mirror to hit objects in the scene as shown in FIGS. 12A-12C.
Applicant’s remaining arguments amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
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.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1 and 12-14, where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “concentrate” as used in claims 1 and 12-14 is used by claims 1 and 12-14 to mean “direct or redirect” light back toward the sensor based on the context of the application, while the accepted meaning generally requires some kind of converging lens or concave mirror to concentrate the light. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
The lack of clarity issue is even more problematic in claim 1 since the return light is concentrated without any reference to how or on what the light is concentrated on.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim limitation “wherein the semi-transmissive mirror has a difference equal to or more than a predetermined value between transmittance and reflectance” is unclear since it’s unclear what parameter the “difference equal to or more than a predetermined value refers to”. Examiner notes that even if this claim limitation were clearly tied to a transmittance or transmissivity of the semi-transmissive mirror, since the predetermined value is undefined the transmissivity could be almost any value that is not completely transmissive or completely reflective, which is already indicated by the semi-transmissive mirror limitation.
Regarding Claim 18, it’s unclear what the limitation “a transmittance” refers to in this claim limitation or how the local maximum can be preconfigured to be related to the transmittance. Examiner notes that the term preconfigured is not even present in the specification as filed.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 18, the application as filed does not describe a step in which a transmittance of an object is determined according to a maximum of a local maximum point in the temporal change in the intensity of photons. The closest the Examiner can find the application to saying this is in Applicant cited [0033] of the instant application as filed where an output transmittance can be estimated and even this estimation depends on a relation or probably some kind of lookup table associating local maximum value and transmittance that requires some kind of experimental measurement of items to determine actual transmissivity values be performed in advance. [0031] of the instant application also requires the transmittance of the object 36 to have already been found.
Instead of trying to determine a transmittance of every object in the field it appears the application seems more geared at distinguishing transmissive objects from noise as shown in FIG. 5, where estimated transmittance information is used to identify objects exceeding the 20% intensity related threshold. It makes sense that determination of a particular transmissivity using a VR setup consistent with the application description would be challenging since transmissivity of transmissive objects would change based on a height and position of a person using the headset as an angle of the user with respect to the object would change how much light passed through vs reflected off the transmissive surface.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fisher (US20220229159).
Regarding Claim 1, Fisher discloses a system (300a or 300b) comprising:
a time of flight (TOF) sensor ([0065] describes 300a/b as flash LIDAR devices) including a light emitter ([0065] also describes the use of VCSELs with output divergence of 20-30 degrees) and a light receiving element (optical detector circuit 130, is shown in FIG. 1. Fisher is silent as to a location of optical detector circuit 130 in system 300a/b);
a semi-transmissive mirror disposed in an optical path of the TOF sensor (see curved optical elements 780 / 980, see FIGS. 3A, 3B, 9B & 9D and explanation in response to arguments above regarding distinction between semi-transmissive mirror and lens), the semi-transmissive mirror having a curved surface and configured to: (i) simultaneously distribute light generated by the light emitter to objects in a plurality of directions in a scene (FIG. 9D shows how light emitted from a particular location travels in multiple directions as it propagates away from the emitter); and (ii) concentrate light reflected from the objects (an optical element has the ability to concentrate light, see 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above) ;
a control unit (208); and
a memory storing software that, when executed by the control unit causes the control unit to:
determine a path length of light to each object of the objects based on a local maximum point in a temporal change in an intensity of photons observed by the light receiving element, thereby acquiring position information regarding each object of the objects ([0053] describes the use of direct time of flight measurement techniques, which measure round trip pulse time of flight when detecting a pulse with sufficient intensity {i.e. local maximum point} to be distinguished above the ambient noise pattern).
Regarding Claim 2, Fisher discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the semi-transmissive mirror is a first semi-transmissive mirror and wherein the system further comprises a second semi-transmissive mirror configured to transmit light received from the first semi-transmissive mirror ([0065] describes the use of emitters with output divergence of 20-30 degrees resulting in the semi-transmissive mirror distributing light in a plurality of directions simultaneously).
Regarding Claim 3, Fisher discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein each object of the objects is reached by the light that has passed through or been reflected by the semi-transmissive mirror (It is not clear that claim 3 further limits the scope of claim 1, since claim 3 does not require light to be reflected off the one-way mirror to strike objects in the scene, only that emitted light reaching the objects pass through OR be reflected off the semi-transmissive mirror).
Regarding Claim 4, Fisher discloses the system according to claim 3, wherein the semi-transmissive mirror has a difference equal to or more than a predetermined value between transmittance and reflectance (this limitation does not have patentable weight as it’s unclear what parameter the “difference equal to or more than a predetermined value refers to”. Even if this referred to a transmittance of the semi-transmissive mirror since the predetermined value is undefined the transmissivity could be almost any value that is not completely transmissive or completely reflective, which is already indicated by the semi-transmissive mirror limitation) , and wherein the software further causes the system to identify a direction corresponding to the acquired path length on a basis of a magnitude of the local maximum point ([0053] describes the use of direct time of flight measurement techniques, which measure round trip pulse time of flight when detecting a pulse with sufficient intensity {i.e. local maximum point} to be distinguished above the ambient noise pattern to determine a distance or path length).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Mallinson (US20180364483).
Regarding Claim 6, Fisher discloses the system according to claim 3, but fails to specifically teach the remainder of claim 6.
However, Mallinson teaches wherein the software further causes the control unit to acquire a captured image corresponding to an angle of view of the light receiving element, estimate the path length of light to each object of the objects using a convolution neural network, and identify, based on the estimating, a direction corresponding to the path length ([0083] of Mallinson describes using image processing logic to process captured image data to determine when the scanning beam was reflected from a target and determine a distance to the object based on the captured image).
Mallinson and Fisher both describe the use of time of flight sensing for sensing an environment surrounding the device / system. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate additional imaging sensors into the configuration taught by Fisher in order to add an additional sensor able to confirm beam travel times ([0083]) and as also noted in [0083] of Mallinson when incorporated into a posture dependent configuration such as a head mounted display add a device orientation detection capability.
Regarding Claim 10, Fisher discloses the position information acquisition control unit according to claim 1 and the combination of Fisher and Mallinson as applied to claim 6 teaches wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire the position information from the path length based on a path of light corresponding to a position and a posture of the irradiation light distribution member ([0008] of Mallinson describes how it is imperative to track location and orientation of the HMD (this includes the irradiation light distribution member) and FIG. 6 illustrates how the orientation of the emitters 200 a-d correspond to the path lengths to the various objects, this posture detection capability from [0083] of Mallinson, incorporated into Fisher as described in the rejection of claim 6 satisfies the posture orientation limitation).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view Mallinson as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teach the system according to claim 6 but fail to teach wherein the software further causes the control unit to separate an image of transmission light and a picture of reflected light from the one-way mirror from each other by the convolution neural network and then generate respective depth images of the pictures to estimate the path length.
However, AAPA teaches wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to separate a picture of transmission light and a picture of reflected light from the one-way mirror from each other by the convolution neural network and then generate respective depth images of the pictures to estimate the path length (the instant specification at [0125] states that regarding CNN there are “a variety of techniques for separating an image captured through a window glass or the like into a picture of transmission light and a picture of reflected light… and the present embodiment may employ any one of them”).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have applied one of the known CNN techniques to the teachings of the combination of Fisher and Piggott to improve them to obtain another source of depth information.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Fisher and Mallinson teaches the system according to claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the software further causes the system to acquire a polarization image as the capture image, separate an image of transmission light and an image of reflected light from the semi-transmissive mirror contained in the captured image from each other based on a polarization direction dependence of luminance, and generate respective depth images of the captured images to estimate the path length.
However, AAPA teaches capturing an image of transmission light and reflected light from the semi-transmissive mirror as described above in the rejection of claim 7 and wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire a polarization image of each of a plurality of directions as a shot image, separate a picture of transmission light and a picture of reflected light from the semi-transmissive mirror contained in the captured image from each other on a basis of polarization direction dependence of luminance, and then generate respective depth images of the pictures to estimate the path length (the instant specification at [0120] states that “image sensors that can acquire both a near-infrared image and a color image and a polarization camera that includes a polarizer layer located in an upper layer of a color filter and thus is allowed to capture a color polarization image have been widely known”).
A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Fisher and Mallinson with the teachings of AAPA to incorporate polarization and near-infrared sensing into image sensors 218 in order to improve the ability to identify transmitted and reflected light.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fisher and Mallinson in view of Mihailescu (US20130237811).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Fisher and Mallinson teaches the system according to claim 10, but fails to teach the remainder of the claim.
However, Mihailescu teaches wherein the software further causes the system to acquire the position and posture of the semi-transmissive mirror based on an image of the semi-transmissive mirror acquired by the light receiving element ([0081] of Mihailescu teaches the use of a light sensing array that captures the entire field of view to make a picture through the optics that a computing unit uses to determine position and orientation based on objects detected within the picture).
Mihailescu and the combination of Fisher and Mallinson both describe flash lidar type LIDAR configurations in which light is simultaneously emitted in multiple directions. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to apply the sensing array imaging technique taught by Mihailescu to the configuration taught by the teachings of the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen as doing so would have the advantage of more quickly gathering position and orientation information as described in [0081] of Mihailescu.
Claims 12-17, 19-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher in view of Piggott (US20200256958).
Regarding Claims 12, Fisher teaches a method comprising: simultaneously distributing a light generated by a time of flight (TOF) sensor ([0065] describes 300a/b as flash LIDAR devices) having a light emitter ([0065] also describes the use of VCSELs with output divergence of 20-30 degrees) and a light receiving element (optical detector circuit 130, is shown in FIG. 1. Fisher is silent as to a location of optical detector circuit 130 in system 300a/b) to objects in a plurality of directions in a scene using a semi-transmissive mirror (780/980) disposed in an optical path of the TOF sensor (FIG. 9D shows how light emitted from a particular location travels in multiple directions as it propagates away from the emitter), the semi-transmissive mirror having a curved surface (see curved optical elements 780 / 980 shown in FIGS. 3A, 3B, 9B & 9D and explanation in Response to Arguments above regarding distinction between semi-transmissive mirror and lens) and concentrating light reflected from the objects including an object that are present in the plurality of directions in the scene (an optical element has the ability to concentrate light, see 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above) ; and
acquiring position information regarding each object of the objects by a position information acquisition device determining a path length of light to each object of the objects that are present in the plurality of directions based on a local maximum point in a temporal change in an intensity of photons observed by the light receiving element ([0053] describes the use of direct time of flight measurement techniques, which measure round trip pulse time of flight when detecting a pulse with sufficient intensity {i.e. local maximum point} to be distinguished above the ambient noise pattern).
Fisher’s silence as to the location of optical detection circuit 130 leaves it unclear whether optical element 980 operates to concentrate or direct light on optical detection circuit 130.
However, Piggott teaches spatial co-location of emitter and receiver apertures as shown in FIGS. 7 and 8. FIG. 6 & [0049] of Piggott describe how each of the emitter/receiver apertures operate to transmit and receive light.
Piggott and Fisher both describe multiple emitter LIDAR configuration. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate transmitter receiver pairs as taught by Piggott into the configuration taught by Fisher as it allows for light to be transmitted into and received back through the same optics providing the advantage of a reduction in optical complexity by using a monostatic optical system.
Regarding Claims 13-14, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 12 is rejected.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the light is simultaneously distributed to each object of the objects in the plurality of directions by the semi- transmissive mirror ([0054] of Fisher illustrates how the distribution of light in different directions made by the flash lidar system 300a/b would blanket or cover any targets T in an illuminated region of interest).
Regarding Claims 16-17, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 is rejected.
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium according to claim 14, wherein the semi-transmissive mirror is semispherical ([0070] of Fisher describes the use of a mandrel element to form a curved emitting surface such as the one shown in FIG. 3D-3E that include matching-curvature optical elements 780. Given that ball mandrels are common forms of mandrels and a semi-spherical or possibly spherical element is depicted in FIG. 1B of Fisher, the combination of Fisher and Piggot render obvious the use of a semi-spherical lens/mirror element).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the method according to claim 12, wherein the position information is acquired from the path length based on a path of light corresponding to a position and a posture of the semi-transmissive mirror (the system described by the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the limitations of claim 20 since the path length of light inherently depends upon the position and posture of the semi-transmissive mirror).
Regarding Claim 22, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the device according to claim 13, wherein the semi-transmissive mirror is a first semi-transmissive mirror (see the rejection of Claim 19 above), and wherein the device further comprises a second semi- transmissive mirror configured to transmit light received from the first semi-transmissive mirror (see FIG. 1B & [0056] of Fisher showing the use of a first semi-spherically shaped surface / optic and a second semi-spherically shaped surface optic through which optical signals 109b pass. [0056] describes with particularity that the depicted lens system can be made of multiple lenses to focus and divert signals 109b).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fisher and Piggott in view of Chirayath (US20190266712).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the non-transitory, computer readable storage medium according to claim 14, wherein the computer program further causes the computer to:
determine, on a pixel-by-pixel basis (Fisher as modified by Piggott teaches an array of pixels {as shown in FIGS. 7 & 8 of Piggott} and light would be received by and processed for each of the pixels resulting in intensity signals being received at each pixel, signals would vary between pixels due to spatial differences in pixel location), an object transmittance for two or more of the objects according to a magnitude of the local maximum point in the temporal change in the intensity of photons (two objects located in the same emitter footprint of the system taught by the combination of Fisher and Piggott are capable of returning different intensities of light depending upon many factors including their transmissivity, the roughness, variation and/or orientation of the surface upon which the laser is reflected from dictate the amount of light transmitted back from the object however a measurement of transmittance is not made. Examiner notes the 20-30 degree beam width taught by Fisher means that detected objects in a common beam do not necessarily involve all of a beam encountering a translucent object being subject to the intensity reduction caused by the translucent object), wherein the magnitude of the local maximum is preconfigured to be related to a transmittance (it’s unclear what “a transmittance” refers to in this claim limitation or how a local maximum can be preconfigured as described in more detail above in the 112(b) rejection of Claim 18).
As indicated above the combination of Fisher and Piggot do not teach determination of an object transmittance. However, Chirayath teaches an estimation of the transmittance of water, which in the context of bathymetric mapping constitutes a translucent object between an optical distance imaging device and a non-translucent object {i.e. the bottom of the body of water}). In particular, Chirayath, like the instant application, as described in [0068] uses properties of the translucent object to help estimate its overall transmittance. Chirayath in the equation within [0067] teaches that the use of the transmittance value as a tool for determining a distance to the non-transmissive object, according to the magnitude of the local maximum point, which would be related to incident radiant flux over radiant flux transmittance as also shown by [0067].
Chirayath and the combination of Fisher and Piggot both describe optical distance measurements. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to incorporate the distance correction method taught by Chirayath to improve object detection when translucent objects such as aquariums are located in a scene between the distance measurement device and objects of interest.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Fisher and Piggott in view of Mihailescu.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination of Fisher and Piggott teaches the method according to claim 20, wherein the position and posture of the semi-transmissive mirror are acquired based on an image of the semi-transmissive mirror acquired by the light receiving element ([0081] of Mihailescu teaches the use of a light sensing array that captures the entire field of view to make a picture through the optics that a computing unit uses to determine position and orientation based on objects detected within the picture).
Mihailescu and the combination of Fisher and Piggott both describe flash lidar type configurations in which light is simultaneously emitted in multiple directions. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to apply the sensing array imaging technique taught by Mihailescu to the configuration taught by the teachings of the combination of Fisher and Piggott as doing so would have the advantage of more quickly gathering position and orientation information as described in [0081] of Mihailescu.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached from 9:30am to 7:00pm ET.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
