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 1-14 are presented for examination.
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 3 - 8 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 3, It is unclear how “each of the objects being reached by the irradiation light that has passed through and been reflected by the one-way mirror”. It is the Examiner’s understanding that any given light being emitted by the LIDAR system as described in the instant specification would either pass through the one-way mirror OR be reflected by it. It appears claim 3 as written requires any object in the field of view to have light hit it that was both reflected by AND passing through the one-way mirror. It appears there would definitely be support for “irradiation light that has passed through OR been reflected by the one-way mirror”. If the claim is to remain as drafted, the Applicant is asked to provide citations to the instant specification or drawings pointing out how this would be accomplished, otherwise appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 4-8, they are also rejected under 112(b) for depending from a rejected base claim 3.
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 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US PG PUB 20180364483 (hereinafter Mallinson) in view of US PG PUB 20200166614 (hereinafter Tchouaffe)
Regarding Claim 1, Mallinson teaches a position information acquisition system (102) configured to cause a light receiving element (212, see FIG. 2) to observe light resulting from irradiation light being reflected by an object (110), thereby acquiring position information regarding the object, the position information acquisition system comprising:
an irradiation light distribution member (204) configured to distribute the
irradiation light in a plurality of directions ; and
a position information acquisition device configured to determine a path length of light to each of the objects that are present in the directions, on a basis of an observation result of the reflected light ([0092] describes the measurement of time for light to reflect off objects and return to determine the distance or path length to various objects), thereby acquiring the position information regarding each of the objects.
As indicated by the strikeout above, Mallinson fails to teach where the irradiation distribution member concentrates the light reflected by objects including the object that are present in the directions on the light receiving element.
However, Tchouaffe teaches an irradiation light distribution member (22) configured to distribute the irradiation light in a plurality of directions (FIGs. 3 - 4 shows a light distribution member taking the form of deflection mirror arrangement 22, [0030] describes how 22 is made up of multiple mirrors 23,24 arranged at different angles and able control distribution of the output of light by periodically switching their status between reflective and transparent states) and concentrate the light reflected by objects including the object that are present in the directions on the light receiving element ([0031] describes how deflection mirror arrangement 22 can be used for directing the light output from the transmitter and for returning reflected light to the light receiving element).
Mallinson and Tchouaffe 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 deflection mirror arrangement taught by Tchouaffe in order to produce a system with a series of stationary mirrors that do not have to be continuously actuated and moving during scanning operations. Tchouaffe at [0005] describes how use of a continuous scanning mirror results in higher power consumption and heat production.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 1, wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire the path length of light to each of the objects that are present in the plurality of directions, on a basis of a local maximum point in a temporal change in a degree of photons observed ([0079] of Mallinson teaches the determination of distance (i.e. path length) using higher intensity signals exceeding a predefined threshold to distinguish objects of interest from background noise), each of the objects being reached by the pulsed irradiation light distributed by the irradiation light distribution member.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 2, comprising: a one-way mirror configured to let a part of the irradiation light through and reflect another part of the irradiation light (deflection mirror arrangement 22 as shown in FIGS. 3-4 of Tchouaffe includes multiple mirrors configured to reflect some light and let other light through as described in [0030] over a course of a scan), as the irradiation light distribution member, wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire the path length of light to each of the objects that are present in the plurality of directions, each of the objects being reached by the irradiation light that has passed through and been reflected by the one-way mirror (light output by the deflection mirror configuration taught by Tchouaffe will be reflected by or pass through each of the mirrors of the deflection mirror arrangement 22, see 112(b) rejection of this claim above).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 3, wherein the one-way mirror has a difference equal to or more than a predetermined value between transmittance and reflectance ([0030] describes how the mirrors will switch between reflecting (nearly 100%) and fully transparent and consequently the mirror all have differences in transmittance and reflectance equal to or more than a predetermined value) , and the position information acquisition device is configured to identify the direction corresponding to the acquired path length on a basis of a magnitude of the local maximum point ([0081] of Mallinson describes the use of timing, which corresponds to the local maximum point as described above to determine direction to a given object).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 3, wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to cause a temporal change in transmittance of the one-way mirror (see [0030] of Tchouaffe) and identify, on a basis of a temporal change in a magnitude of the local maximum point corresponding to the temporal change, the direction corresponding to the acquired path length (the temporal change in transmittance as described in Tchouaffe relates directly to the direction of output of the light as shown in FIG. 4 and described in [0033]).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 3, wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire a captured image corresponding to an angle of view of the light receiving element, estimate the path length of light to each of the objects by using a convolution neural network, and identify, on a basis of a result of the estimating, the direction corresponding to the acquired 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 Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 2, comprising: a photochromatic mirror as the irradiation light distribution member, the photochromatic mirror being 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 (see [0030] of Tchouaffe), wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire the path length of light to each 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 (in the configuration taught by Tchouaffe all transmitted light is reflected by one of the transparency adjustable mirrors of deflection mirror arrangement 22).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe 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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallinson) in view Tchouaffe 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 Tchouaffe teach the position information acquisition system according to claim 6 but fail to teach 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.
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 Tchouaffe to improve them to obtain another source of depth information.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Mallinson and Tchouaffe teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 6, but fails to teach wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire a polarization image of each of a plurality of directions as the shot image, separate a picture of transmission light and a picture of reflected light from the one-way 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 one-way 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 the shot image, separate a picture of transmission light and a picture of reflected light from the one-way 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 Tchouaffe 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.
Claims 1, 10 and 11 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Mallinson in view of US PG PUB 20130237811 (hereinafter Mihailescu)
Regarding Claim 1, Mallinson teaches a position information acquisition system (102) configured to cause a light receiving element (212, see FIG. 2) to observe light resulting from irradiation light being reflected by an object (110), thereby acquiring position information regarding the object, the position information acquisition system comprising:
an irradiation light distribution member (204) configured to distribute the
irradiation light in a plurality of directions ; and
a position information acquisition device configured to determine a path length of light to each of the objects that are present in the directions, on a basis of an observation result of the reflected light ([0092] describes the measurement of time for light to reflect off objects and return to determine the distance or path length to various objects), thereby acquiring the position information regarding each of the objects.
However, Mihailescu teaches an irradiation light distribution member (22) configured to distribute the irradiation light in a plurality of directions ([0081] describes a flash LIDAR system illuminating an entire field of view at once) and concentrate the light reflected by objects including the object that are present in the directions on the light receiving element ([0082] describes how the LIDAR system has common optics for the emitter and receiver).
Mallinson and Tchouaffe both describe LIDAR configurations in which orientation of the LIDAR device is important to accurate operation. 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 flash lidar configuration taught by Mihailescu in order to produce a system able to quickly gather information from an entire field of view without having to wait for completion of an entire scan like the system taught by Mallinson.
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Mallinson and Mihailescu 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 Claim 11, the combination of Mallinson and Mihailescu teaches the position information acquisition system according to claim 10, wherein the position information acquisition device is configured to acquire the position and the posture of the irradiation light distribution member 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).
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 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, 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