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 . Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Amendments to claim 3 have overcome the 35 USC 112(b) rejection issued in the previous office action.
Applicant’s substantive arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the 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.
Claim 5 and 9 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 5 and 9, they makes the intended scope of the claim limitation “semi-transmissive mirror” unclear. It appears to suggest that a semi-transmissive mirror can be a polychromatic mirror that switches between 100% transmittance and 100% reflectance. Semi-transmissive mirror suggests that the mirror must have some amount of transmittance and reflectance and the limitations of claim 2 tend to support the interpretation that the mirror be both transmissive and reflective.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 5 and 9 are 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, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 5 and 9, they constitutes new matter since a configuration in which a polychromatic mirror switches between 100% transmittance, 100% reflectance and some intermediate, semi-transmissive state is not disclosed or suggested (see [0106]-[0107] and [0115] of the instant specification).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6, 9-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20180364483 (hereinafter Mallinson) in view of US PG PUB 20220099806 (hereinafter Nguyen)
Regarding Claim 1, Mallinson teaches a system (102) comprising:
a time of flight (TOF) sensor including a light emitter (202) and a light receiving element (212, see FIG. 2);
a (MEMs mirror 204) configured to distribute light generated by the light emitter
a control unit (208); and
a memory storing software that, when executed by the control unit causes the system to:
determine a path length of light to each object of the objects based on a local maximum point in a temporal change in a degree of photons observed by the light receiving element, thereby acquiring position information regarding each object of the objects ([0079] describes the identification of signal peaks for accurate distance detection).
As indicated by the strikeout above, Mallinson fails to teach where a semi-transmissive mirror configured to distribute light generated by the light emitter and concentrate reflected light reflected from objects that are present in a plurality of direction in a scene.
However, Nguyen teaches a semi-transmissive mirror (light signal redirection device 34/40, [0025] describes the signal redirection device as including mirrored and/or diffractive structures, [0025] also describes how the position region {FIG. 2 shows position region 62 including diffractive structure 63} can be disposed on a mirror. Examiner is interpreting light signal redirection device as taking the form of a light transmissive mirror with some diffractive surface regions for emission/receipt of the light [0034] describes how the position region can have transmissive and reflective effects, which specifically teaches the mirror being semi-transmissive) configured to distribute light generated by the light emitter and concentrate reflected light reflected from objects (see exemplary object 18 in FIGS. 2) that are present in a plurality of directions in a scene, wherein the reflected light comprises a portion of the light.
Mallinson and Nguyen both describe scanning LIDAR configurations. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to replace the MEMS mirror scanning configuration taught by Mallinson with the mirror with diffractive surface regions taught by Nguyen in order to produce a system where a shape of the light signals can be shaped as needed as described in [0033] of Nguyen.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the light is simultaneously distributed to each object of the objects in the plurality of directions by the semi-transmissive mirror ([0025] of Nguyen teaches incorporation of diffractive elements on the mirrored substrate, which allows for the emission of light passing through the signal redirection device to be redirected simultaneously in multiple directions).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the semi-transmissive mirror is configured to let a part of the light through and reflect another part of the light ([0034] of Nguyen describes how light signal redirection device 34/40 can have transmissive and reflective effects that would cause a portion of the light to pass through and another portion to be reflected off), and wherein the software further causes the system to acquire the path length of light to each object of the objects that are present in the plurality of directions, each object of the objects being reached by the light that has passed through or been reflected by the one-way mirror ([0079] of Mallinson describes the identification of signal peaks for accurate distance detection).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches 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 is referencing) , 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 ([0079] and [0081] of Mallinson describes the use of timing, which corresponds to the local maximum point as described above to determine location and direction to a given object).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the software further causes the system to cause a temporal change in transmittance of the semi-transmissive mirror and identify, on a basis of a temporal change in a magnitude of the local maximum point corresponding to the temporal change, a direction corresponding to the acquired path length (it’s unclear how this would function given that this claim appears to be supported by [0106], which describes a photochromatic mirror that switches between states of total transmittance and total reflection since the claim describes the mirror as being a semi-transmissive mirror, see 112(a) and (b) rejections above).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the system according to claim 3, wherein the software further causes the system 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 by using a convolution neural network, and identify, on a basis of a result of 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).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the semi-transmissive mirror comprises a photochromatic mirror switchable between a first state that satisfies a predetermined condition under which the photochromatic mirror is considered as being transparent and a second state that satisfies a predetermined condition under which mirror reflection is considered to be performed, wherein the software further causes the system to acquire the path length of light to each object of the objects that are present in the plurality of directions, the objects being reached by light that has passed through the photochromatic mirror in the first state and light that has been reflected by the photochromatic mirror in the second state (it’s unclear how this would function given that this claim appears to be supported by [0106], which describes a photochromatic mirror that switches between states of total transmittance and total reflection since the claim describes the mirror as being a semi-transmissive mirror, see 112(a) and (b) rejections above).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 1, wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire the position information from the path length on a basis of 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).
Regarding Claims 12-14, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 is rejected.
Regarding Claims 15-17, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 2 is rejected.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallinson in view Nguyen as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teach the system according to claim 6 but fail to teach wherein the software further causes the system 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.
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 Mallinson and Nguyen to improve them to obtain another source of depth information.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen teaches the system according to claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the software further causes the system 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.
However, AAPA teaches capturing a picture 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 Mallinson and Nguyen 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 Mallinson and Nguyen in view of US PG PUB 20130237811 (hereinafter Mihailescu)
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Mallinson and Mihailescu 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 the posture of the semi-transmissive mirror on a basis of a picture of the irradiation light distribution member 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 irradiation light distribution member that a computing unit uses to determine position and orientation based on objects detected within the picture).
Mihailescu and the combination of Mallinson and Nguyen 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.
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.
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 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
Prosecution Insights