DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1-15 are pending and presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The representative claim 1 recites:
A time-of-flight data processing device, comprising:
an intelligence processing unit (IPU), performing following operations on sensing data generated by a time-of-flight ranging device:
performing a conditional logical process and an image difference calculation according to the sensing data to generate depth data; and
performing a filter process according to the depth data to generate output data,
wherein, the IPU comprises a vector calculating unit and a multiply-accumulate (MAC) calculation unit, the conditional logical process is performed by the vector calculating unit, and the filter process is performed by the (MAC) calculation unit.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements”.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category (process).
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation that fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers mathematical concepts (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations) and/or mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional limitations in the claim are only: an intelligence processing unit (IPU), performing following operations on sensing data generated by a time-of-flight ranging device,… wherein, the IPU comprises a vector calculating unit and a multiply-accumulate (MAC) calculation unit, the conditional logical process is performed by the vector calculating unit, and the filter process is performed by the (MAC) calculation unit. The claim limitation “an intelligence processing unit (IPU), performing following operations on sensing data generated by a time-of-flight ranging device” is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., gathering data using a generic sensor) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic sensor.
Further, the claim limitation “wherein, the IPU comprises a vector calculating unit and a multiply-accumulate (MAC) calculation unit, the conditional logical process is performed by the vector calculating unit, and the filter process is performed by the (MAC) calculation unit”, is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer function of processing information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as noted above, the additional limitations recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic sensor and processing information using a computer components). Further, the additional elements are conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Croxford et al. US 2021/0304514 (hereinafter, Croxford), ([0043], [0063], [0078], Fig. 1), and Cho et al. US 2022/0343523 (hereinafter, Cho), ([0004], [0037], [0106], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-15, add further details of the identified abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8, recite addition element of “wherein the IPU directly communicates with the CPU through a connection path so as to receive the transformation matrix,” However, this limitation is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer structures performing a generic computer function receiving information) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components. Further, the additional element is conventional in the art, as evidenced by the art of record (see, Croxford ([0043], Fig. 1), and Cho, ([0037], [0106], Fig. 1). Therefore, claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 9, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
Claim Objection
5. Claims 6 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 6 and 14 recite “…artan2 function” should read “ arctan2 function.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 of this title, 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. Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croxford et al. US 2021/0304514 (hereinafter, Croxford), in view of Cho et al. US 2022/0343523 (hereinafter, Cho).
8. Regarding claim 1, Croxford discloses a time-of-flight data processing device, comprising:
an intelligence processing unit (IPU) ([0043]: a neural processing unit (NPU)), performing following operations on sensing data generated by a time-of-flight ranging device ([0043], [0078]):
performing a conditional logical process and an image calculation according to sensing data to generate depth data ([0078]-[0079], Fig. 1); and
performing a filter process according to the depth data to generate output data ([0063], [0078]),
wherein, the IPU comprises a vector calculating unit and a multiply-accumulate (MAC) calculation unit, the conditional logical process is performed by the vector calculating unit, and the filter process is performed by the (MAC) calculation unit.
([0063], Fig. 1: the precise features that the kernels are trained to identify may depend on the image characteristics, such as the class of objects, that the neural network is trained to detect. The kernels may be of any size. A kernel may sometimes be referred to as a “filter kernel” or a “filter”. A convolution operation, performed during processing done by a CNN, generally involves a multiplication operation and an addition operation—sometimes referred to as a multiply-accumulate (or “MAC”) operation. Thus, a neural network accelerator configured to implement an ANN may include a multiplier-accumulator (MAC) unit configured to perform these operations).
Croxford does not disclose:
an image difference calculation according to the sensing data to generate depth data.
However, Cho discloses:
an image difference calculation according to the sensing data to generate depth data ([0032], [0048], [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford to use an image difference calculation according to the sensing data to generate depth data as taught by Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the depth data accurately (Cho, [0062]).
9. Regarding claim 9, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 1.
10. Regarding claim 2, Croxford in view of Cho disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 1, wherein the vector calculating unit performs the conditional logical process according to the sensing data as disclosed above.
Croxford does not disclose:
correct a data value of the sensing data to be within a first predetermined range.
However, Cho discloses:
correct a data value of the sensing data to be within a first predetermined range ([0032]-[0034], [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford to use correct a data value of the sensing data to be within a first predetermined range as taught by Cho. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to determine the depth data accurately (Cho, [0062]).
11. Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 2.
12. Claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croxford, in view of Cho, in further view of Park et al. US 2013/0201183 (hereinafter, Park).
13. Regarding claim 3, Croxford in view of Cho disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Croxford further discloses the IPU comprises: a look-up table (LUT) unit ([0125]). Further, Cho discloses a plurality of image differences generated by the image difference calculation to generate phase shift data ([0032]).
Croxford in view of Cho does not disclose:
looking up an LUT according to a plurality of image differences generated by the image difference calculation to generate phase shift data.
However, Park discloses:
looking up an LUT according to a plurality of image differences generated by the image difference calculation to generate phase shift data ([0021], [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford in view of Cho to use looking up an LUT according to a plurality of image differences generated by the image difference calculation to generate phase shift data as taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to generate phase shift data efficiently (Park, [0071]).
14. Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 3.
15. Regarding claim 4, Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 3, as disclosed above.
Croxford further discloses a look-up table (LUT) unit ([0125]). Further, Cho discloses corrects the phase shift data to correct a data value of the phase shift data to generate the depth data ([0032], [0048], [0073]).
Croxford in view of Cho does not disclose:
corrects the phase shift data to correct a data value of the phase shift data to be within a second predetermined range, and the LUT unit looks up another LUT according to the corrected phase shift data.
However, Park discloses:
corrects the phase shift data to correct a data value of the phase shift data to be within a second predetermined range, and the LUT unit looks up another LUT according to the corrected phase shift data ([0021], [0065], [0127], [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford in view of Cho to use corrects the phase shift data to correct a data value of the phase shift data to be within a second predetermined range, and the LUT unit looks up another LUT according to the corrected phase shift data as taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to generate phase shift data efficiently (Park, [0071]).
16. Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 4.
17. Regarding claim 6, Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 3, as disclosed above.
Croxford further discloses a look-up table (LUT) unit ([0125]).
Croxford in view of Cho does not disclose:
wherein the LUT comprises a calculation result of an artan2 function.
However, Park discloses:
wherein the LUT comprises a calculation result of an artan function ([0021]: an arctangent of the ratio between the first weighted image U and the second weighted image V). Croxford discloses LUT unit as disclosed above. Further, Cho discloses corrects the phase shift data as disclosed above. Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park does not disclose using an artan2 function. However, using an artan2 function would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park as disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford in view of Cho to use wherein the LUT comprises a calculation result of an artan2 function as taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to generate phase shift data efficiently (Park, [0071]).
18. Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 6.
19. Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croxford, in view of Cho, in view of Park, in further view of Luo et al. CN 113643208 A (hereinafter, Luo).
20. Regarding claim 5, Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 4, as disclosed above.
Croxford further discloses a look-up table (LUT) unit ([0125]), and a dot product operation and generate the depth data ([0063], [0078]). Further, Cho discloses a dot product operation and generate the depth data ([0007], [0106]).
Croxford in view of Cho does not disclose:
performs a dot product operation according to a result of looking up the another LUT and a correction matrix to generate the depth data.
However, Park discloses:
performs a dot product operation according to a result of looking up the another LUT ([0021], [0065]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford in view of Cho to use performs a dot product operation according to a result of looking up the another LUT as taught by Park. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to generate phase shift data efficiently (Park, [0071]).
Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park does not disclose:
a correction matrix to generate the depth data.
However, Luo discloses:
a correction matrix to generate the depth data (page 8, lines 20-33).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford in view of Cho in view of Park to use a correction matrix to generate the depth data as taught by Luo. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to prevent depth data from generating physical space distortion and improve the accuracy of measurement (Luo, page 9).
21. Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 5.
22. Claims 7, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Croxford, in view of Cho, in further view of Luo.
23. Regarding claim 7, Croxford in view of Cho disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 1, as disclosed above.
Croxford further discloses a central processing unit (CPU), configured to calculate a transformation matrix ([0043], [0077]); and the depth information to adjust a resolution corresponding to the depth data ([0100], [0119]), the MAC calculation unit ([0063]).
Croxford in view of Cho does not disclose:
performs an affine transformation according to the transformation matrix.
However, Luo discloses:
performs an affine transformation according to the transformation matrix (page 8, lines 20-37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Croxford in view of Cho to use performs an affine transformation according to the transformation matrix as taught by Luo. The motivation for doing so would have been in order to prevent depth data from generating physical space distortion and improve the accuracy of measurement (Luo, page 9).
24. Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected with the same rationale as in claim 7.
25. Regarding claim 8, Croxford in view of Cho in view of Luo disclose the time-of-flight data processing device according to claim 7, as disclosed above.
Croxford further discloses wherein the IPU directly communicates with the CPU through a connection path so as to receive the transformation matrix ([0043], [0077]).
Conclusion
26. Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, and/or paragraphs, and/or pages in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
27. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EYOB HAGOS whose telephone number is (571)272-3508. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Shelby Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Eyob Hagos/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857