DETAILED ACTION
Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-30 are currently pending in this application.
Priority
2. No foreign priority has been claimed in this application.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: PCT information should be included in a cross reference to related applications section. Appropriate correction is required.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/23/2024 was received. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings submitted on 7/07/2023 are in compliance with 37 CFR § 1.81 and 37 CFR § 1.83 and have been accepted by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Non-Statutory
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Specifically, representative Claim 1 recites:
A apparatus for determining depth information, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
cause at least one transmitter to transmit electromagnetic (EM) radiation toward a plurality of points in an environment;
compare a phase of the transmitted EM radiation with a phase of received EM radiation to determine a respective time-of-flight estimate of the EM radiation between transmission and reception for each point of the plurality of points in the environment;
determine first depth information based on the respective time-of-flight estimates determined for each point of the plurality of points in the environment;
obtain second depth information based on an image of the environment;
compare the first depth information with the second depth information to determine an inconsistency between the first depth information and the second depth information; and
adjust a depth of the first depth information based on the inconsistency.
The claim limitations in the abstract idea have been highlighted in bold above; the remaining limitations are “additional elements.”
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and26.
Under Step 1 of the analysis, claim 1 does belong to a statutory category, namely it is an apparatus claim. Likewise, claim 8 is a process claim and claim 26 a non-transitory computer readable medium claim.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 is found to include at least one judicial exception, that being a mathematical and/or mental process. This can be seen in the claim limitation of “determine first depth information based on the respective time-of-flight estimates determined for each point of the plurality of points in the environment; obtain second depth information based on an image of the environment; compare the first depth information with the second depth information to determine an inconsistency between the first depth information and the second depth information; and adjust a depth of the first depth information based on the inconsistency.” which is the judicial exception of a mental process and/or a mathematical concept because it is merely a data evaluation including calculations, and/or judgements capable of being performed mentally.
Similar limitations comprise the abstract ideas of Claims 14 and 26.
Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception(s) into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
In addition to the abstract ideas recited in claim 1, the claimed method recites additional elements including at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
cause at least one transmitter to transmit electromagnetic (EM) radiation toward a plurality of points in an environment;
compare a phase of the transmitted EM radiation with a phase of received EM radiation to determine a respective time-of-flight estimate of the EM radiation between transmission and reception for each point of the plurality of points in the environment;” (claims 1, 14, and 26) which are merely data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality and therefore merely amount to “insignificant extra-solution” activity(ies). See MPEP 2106.05(g) “Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity,”. The claim also recites “a memory” and a “processor” (claims 1, 8, and 15) however the “processor” is recited at a high level of generality, e.g. Spec. [0080] describing a variety of different types of “processors” that may be used, and merely amounts to the use of computer technology as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or the use of “processor” to perform the predictions, that are otherwise abstract, is merely an attempt at limiting the abstract to a particular field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The generic data gathering, processing, and output steps, and other elements, are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided) that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on a computer. It can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer. Noting MPEP 2106.04(d)(I): “It is notable that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in Step 2A Prong Two. As the Supreme Court explained in Alice Corp., mere physical or tangible implementation of an exception does not guarantee eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 224, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983-84 (2014) ("The fact that a computer ‘necessarily exist[s] in the physical, rather than purely conceptual, realm,’ is beside the point")”.
Thus, under Step 2A, prong 2 of the analysis, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception. No specific practical application is associated with the claimed system. For instance, nothing is done with the adjusted depth.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, merely amount to a general purpose computer system that attempts to apply the abstract idea in a technological environment, limiting the abstract idea to a particular field of use, and/or merely insignificant extra-solution activity (claims 1, 14, and 26). Such insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data gathering and output, when re-evaluated under Step 2B is further found to be well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, and electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document).
Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that claim 1, as well as claims 14 and 26, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
With regards to the dependent claims, claims 2-13, 15-25, and 27-30, merely further expand upon the algorithm/abstract idea and do not set forth further additional elements therefore these claims are found ineligible for the reasons described for independent claims 1, 14, and 26.
See Supreme court decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International, et al.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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 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.
9. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1-4, 8-17 and 21-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (USPN).
With regards to claim 1,14, and 26 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches a apparatus for determining depth information, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory;(1004; figure 10) and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (1002, 1004; figure 10) and configured to:
cause at least one transmitter to transmit electromagnetic (EM) radiation toward a plurality of points in an environment; (1010; figure 10)(paragraph 0031)
compare a phase of the transmitted EM radiation with a phase of received EM radiation to determine a respective time-of-flight estimate of the EM radiation between transmission and reception for each point of the plurality of points in the environment; (Paragraph 0052, 0054)
determine first depth information based on the respective time-of-flight estimates determined for each point of the plurality of points in the environment; (604; figure 6)
obtain second depth information based on an image of the environment; (612,614; figure 6)
compare the first depth information with the second depth information to determine an inconsistency between the first depth information and the second depth information; (paragraph 0054) and
adjust a depth of the first depth information based on the inconsistency. (620; figure 6) (paragraph 0056)
With regards to claim 2,15, and 27 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches obtaining the image of the environment; and determine the second depth information using a monocular-depth-estimation technique. (estimated depth; paragraph 0052-0053)
With regards to claim 3,16, and 28 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches generating a partition map based on the image; partition the first depth information according to the partition map to generate first depth partitions; and partition the second depth information according to the partition map to generate second depth partitions; wherein to compare the first depth information with the second depth information the at least one processor is further configured to compare the first depth partitions with the second depth partitions to determine the inconsistency. (paragraph 0034-0037)
With regards to claim 4,17, and 29 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches generating the partition map the at least one processor is further configured to use at least one of an object-detection technique, a saliency-map technique, or a super-pixel technique to generate the partition map based on the image. (detected object; paragraph 0037)
With regards to claim 8 and 21 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches adjust the depth of the first depth information based on the inconsistency the at least one processor is further configured to adjust a depth of a depth partition of the first depth partitions. (control of depth tracking frame; paragraph 0037)
With regards to claim 9, and 22 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches at least one processor is further configured to generate third depth information based on the first depth information and the adjusted depth of the depth partition. (third frequency; paragraph 0057)
With regards to claim 10 and 23 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches the partition map is generated further based on the second depth information. (paragraph 0034)
With regards to claim 11 and 24 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches adjust the depth of the first depth information the at least one processor is further configured to add or subtract a distance based on a wavelength of the EM radiation to the depth of the first depth information. (de-aliasing ;paragraph 0041)
With regards to claim 12 and 25 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches generate third depth information based on the first depth information including the adjusted depth of the first depth information. (third frequency; paragraph 0057)
With regards to claim 13 Price et al. US Pat# 2018/0218509 teaches at least one transmitter, the at least one transmitter configured to transmit electromagnetic (EM) radiation toward a plurality of points in an environment. (paragraph 0004)
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 5-7, 18-20 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bleyer et al. US 2021/0004937 teaches a machine learned depth dealiasing.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADITYA S BHAT whose telephone number is (571)272-2270. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8 am-6pm.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/ADITYA S BHAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857 September 28, 2025