DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, and 2 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (Publication: US 2004/0240754 A1) in view of COSTINGAN et al. (Publication: US 2015/0222820 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Smith discloses scanner, comprising ([0133] FIG. 29 - the dimensioning system hardware. A frame constructed of aluminum supports the laser scanning unit and a camera. The laser control electronics and computer system, including I/O and framegrabber cards, are shown near the left side of the photograph. It is knowns that a computer has memory and software executed by CPU to perform: ):
a first camera; and a second camera (Fig. 19, camera 1 and camera 2.),
wherein the first camera and the second camera are configured to simultaneously image a target object while the laser line is projected onto the target object and wherein the first camera has a different light acquisition configuration from the second camera ([0145] The dimensioning process begins by scanning laser 1 rapidly through the measurement space. During the rapid scan, cameras 1 and 2 determine the approximate location and extent of the object. Laser 1 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1A and 2B) acquire point cloud data simultaneously. Laser 2 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1B and 2A) acquire point cloud data simultaneously.
As showing in Fig. 34, Camera 1 and Camera 2 have different light acquisition, different FOV.).
Smith does not however Costingan discloses a laser line projector configured to project a laser line ([0029] – a laser projects a line).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas with a laser line projector configured to project a laser line as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve accuracy thus has a better measurement.
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 1.
Smith discloses at least one additional camera configured with a light acquisition configuration that differs from a light acquisition configuration of the first camera and a light acquisition configuration of the second camera ([0147] - As shown in Fig. 35 – Camera 3 is positioned at different orientation for taking light, image, different FOV .
[0142] – 4 cameras, [0142] Together, the four Cameras offer differing operational characteristics that the controlling software may call upon during a given measurement cycle. For example, subsystems 1A and 2A behave as the existing overhead dimensioning system but with differing fields of view. See Table 1 .).
Regarding claim 4, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 1.
Smith discloses wherein the scanner calculates a location of a point on a surface of the target object ([0145] The dimensioning process begins by scanning laser 1 rapidly through the measurement space. During the rapid scan, cameras 1 and 2 determine the approximate location and extent of the object.).
Costingan discloses calculate is based from a selected item of one of the first item or the second item ([0038] – achieving a change in the FOV often requires changing the baseline (e.g., baseline 154 shown in FIG. 1B) between the laser and the imaging lens.
[0055] - the laser can be focused or configured such that the beam is tightest for the particular FOV. For example, some lensed laser widths may vary across the FOV, so the position where the beam is thinnest corresponds to the laser's best focus, while the laser's line gets wider as it gets more out of focus (e.g., further away from the best focus position). The laser can be selected so that the laser's best focus aligns with the FOV (e.g., so where the beam is thinnest aligns with the FOV). The single determination is thinnest .).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas in view of Costingan with calculate is based from a selected item of one of the first item or the second item as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 4 including first camera and second camera.
Costingan discloses responsive to at least one of a determination that an image from an unselected item contains a too large apparent laser line or a determination that an image from the selected item contains a thinnest apparent laser line ([0055] - the laser can be focused or configured such that the beam is tightest for the particular FOV. For example, some lensed laser widths may vary across the FOV, so the position where the beam is thinnest corresponds to the laser's best focus, while the laser's line gets wider as it gets more out of focus (e.g., further away from the best focus position). The laser can be selected so that the laser's best focus aligns with the FOV (e.g., so where the beam is thinnest aligns with the FOV).)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas in view of Costingan with responsive to at least one of a determination that an image from an unselected item contains a too large apparent laser line or a determination that an image from the selected item contains a thinnest apparent laser line as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 5 including first camera and second camera.
Costingan discloses wherein the selected item is chosen for all points visible in an image based upon a single determination ([0055] - the laser can be focused or configured such that the beam is tightest for the particular FOV. For example, some lensed laser widths may vary across the FOV, so the position where the beam is thinnest corresponds to the laser's best focus, while the laser's line gets wider as it gets more out of focus (e.g., further away from the best focus position). The laser can be selected so that the laser's best focus aligns with the FOV (e.g., so where the beam is thinnest aligns with the FOV). The single determination is thinnest .)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas in view of Costingan with wherein the selected item is chosen for all points visible in an image based upon a single determination as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 1 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses wherein the scanner generates fused data with data from the first camera and data from the second camera and calculates a location of a point on a surface of the object based upon the fused data ([0135], [046] - the height of each point is calculated using the previously described methods. The points of all scans by two cameras are combined into a new image "cloud."
[0136] During determination of the dimensions of a noncuboidal object, the dimensioning system continually calculates the height of all three-dimensional pixel points during the laser sweep of the measuring volume. This allows any background objects, such as a pallet or any markings on the floor, etc., to be removed from the cubing task. For example, the system may delete all pixels below 6 cm in height. As shown schematically in FIG. 30, the remaining pixels are accumulated to form a three-dimensional cloud of data points representing the surface of the scanned object(s). Object maximum and average height are calculated during the laser sweep. Object length and width are calculated by fitting a "minimum enclosing rectangle" to a plan view of the data point cloud, as shown in FIG. 31.)
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 1 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses wherein the laser line projector is configured to project a laser line as a pulse when at least one of the first camera and the second camera are capturing an image ([0065] – Laser scans, light-strip (laser) projects diagonally onto the box to produce a "pulse" type of image.
Camera captures an image.
[0145] The dimensioning process begins by scanning laser 1 rapidly through the measurement space. During the rapid scan, cameras 1 and 2 determine the approximate location and extent of the object. Laser 1 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1A and 2B) acquire point cloud data simultaneously. Laser 2 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1B and 2A) acquire point cloud data simultaneously.).
Regarding claim 9, see rejection on claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 9 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses adding the point to the 3D point cloud and storing the 3D point cloud in a memory ([0136] - the remaining pixels are accumulated to form a three-dimensional cloud of data points representing the surface of the scanned object(s).
[0139] – point cloud is stored .).
Regarding claim 11, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 9 including first camera and second camera.
Costingan discloses wherein the analyzing comprises determining that an image contains at least one of a thinnest apparent laser line or a largest apparent laser line ([0055] - the laser can be focused or configured such that the beam is tightest for the particular FOV. For example, some lensed laser widths may vary across the FOV, so the position where the beam is thinnest corresponds to the laser's best focus, while the laser's line gets wider as it gets more out of focus (e.g., further away from the best focus position). The laser can be selected so that the laser's best focus aligns with the FOV (e.g., so where the beam is thinnest aligns with the FOV). The single determination is thinnest .)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas in view of Costingan with the analyzing comprises determining that an image contains at least one of a thinnest apparent laser line or a largest apparent laser line as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 12, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 11 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses further comprising either generating fused data with the first image and the second image or selecting a camera responsive to the determination ([0135], [046] - the height of each point is calculated using the previously described methods. The points of all scans by two cameras are combined into a new image "cloud.").
Costingan discloses the determination that an image contains at least one of a thinnest apparent laser line or a largest apparent laser line ([0055] - the laser can be focused or configured such that the beam is tightest for the particular FOV. For example, some lensed laser widths may vary across the FOV, so the position where the beam is thinnest corresponds to the laser's best focus, while the laser's line gets wider as it gets more out of focus (e.g., further away from the best focus position). The laser can be selected so that the laser's best focus aligns with the FOV (e.g., so where the beam is thinnest aligns with the FOV). The single determination is thinnest .), and
calculating a location of the point based upon the data or data from the selected item ([0038] – achieving a change in the FOV often requires changing the baseline (e.g., baseline 154 shown in FIG. 1B) between the laser and the imaging lens.
[0055] - the laser can be focused or configured such that the beam is tightest for the particular FOV. For example, some lensed laser widths may vary across the FOV, so the position where the beam is thinnest corresponds to the laser's best focus, while the laser's line gets wider as it gets more out of focus (e.g., further away from the best focus position). The laser can be selected so that the laser's best focus aligns with the FOV (e.g., so where the beam is thinnest aligns with the FOV). The single determination is thinnest .).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas in view of Costingan with the determination that an image contains at least one of a thinnest apparent laser line or a largest apparent laser line, and calculating a location of the point based upon the data or data from the selected item as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve image quality.
Regarding claim 13, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 9 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses additional cameras that have light acquisition configurations that differ from each other and those of the first camera and the second camera (
[0142] – 4 cameras, [0142] Together, the four Cameras offer differing operational characteristics that the controlling software may call upon during a given measurement cycle. For example, subsystems 1A and 2A behave as the existing overhead dimensioning system but with differing fields of view. See Table 1 .).
Regarding claim 14, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 9 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses projecting at least one additional laser line onto the target object ([0145] The dimensioning process begins by scanning laser 1 rapidly through the measurement space. During the rapid scan, cameras 1 and 2 determine the approximate location and extent of the object. Laser 1 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1A and 2B) acquire point cloud data simultaneously. Laser 2 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1B and 2A) acquire point cloud data simultaneously, scan is additional laser line.).
Regarding claim 15, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 9 including first camera and second camera.
Smith discloses wherein capturing the first image is partially simultaneous with the capturing the second image (
Fig. 19, Camera 1 and Camera 2 capture partially objects.
[0145] The dimensioning process begins by scanning laser 1 rapidly through the measurement space. During the rapid scan, cameras 1 and 2 determine the approximate location and extent of the object. Laser 1 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1A and 2B) acquire point cloud data simultaneously. Laser 2 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1B and 2A) acquire point cloud data simultaneously, scan is additional laser line.).
Regarding claim 16, see rejection on claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, see rejection on claim 17.
Regarding claim 18, see rejection on claim 18.
Regarding claim 19, see rejection on claim 19.
Regarding claim 20, see rejection on claim 20.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (Publication: US 2004/0240754 A1) in view of COSTINGAN et al. (Publication: US 2015/0222820 A1) and Robertson (Patent: US 10,536,666 B1).
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Costingan disclose all the limitation of claim 1 including first camera and second camera.
Smith in view of Costingan do not, Baldwin discloses wherein a light acquisition configuration comprises an exposure time, and the first camera is configured to begin a first exposure at a first time before the second camera is configured to begin a second exposure at a second time and the first exposure is configured to end at a fourth time after the second exposure is configured to end at a third time ( Column 7 lines 15 to 35 - cameras may have temporally centered exposures. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 7, a camera 702 may alternate between short and long exposures, with each readout starting immediately following the end of the exposure. In this example, a camera 704 may similarly alternate between short and long exposures but may have shorter long exposures than camera 702.
PNG
media_image1.png
494
718
media_image1.png
Greyscale
).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas in view of Costingan with wherein a light acquisition configuration comprises an exposure time, and the first camera is configured to begin a first exposure at a first time before the second camera is configured to begin a second exposure at a second time and the first exposure is configured to end at a fourth time after the second exposure is configured to end at a third time as taught by Robertson . The motivation for doing is to improve coverage.
Response to
Examiner suggests to amend a specific element in the claim that when reading a claim in light of the invention, it directs to a unique technology. The examiner can be reached at 571-270-0724 for further discussion.
Claim Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant asserts “Applicant respectfully submits that this interpretation is inconsistent with the specification and the plain meaning of the terms in the art, as understood by a person of ordinary skill. A "Field of View" (FOV) is a spatial or geometric property, which defines where a camera is looking (e.g., the top of a package vs. the side of a package). In contrast, a "Light Acquisition Configuration" is a radiometric property, which defines how the camera sensor captures or processes the incoming light (e.g., exposure duration).”
During patent examination, the pending claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See MPEP § 2111. Further, although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). See also MPEP § 2145(VI).
Smith reads on “the first camera has a different light acquisition configuration from the second camera”, [0145] The dimensioning process begins by scanning laser 1 rapidly through the measurement space. During the rapid scan, cameras 1 and 2 determine the approximate location and extent of the object. Laser 1 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1A and 2B) acquire point cloud data simultaneously. Laser 2 is scanned over the object and cameras 1 and 2 (subsystems 1B and 2A) acquire point cloud data simultaneously.
As showing in Fig. 34, Camera 1 and Camera 2 have different light acquisition, different FOV.
Applicant asserts “The Office Action relies on Costingan to teach a "laser line projector configured to project a laser line. Office Action, p. 4. The Office Action concludes it would be obvious to modify Smith with Costingan to "improve accuracy." Id. Applicant submits that Costingan fails to cure the deficiency noted above regarding Smith. Costingan is directed to optical mechanics. As such, Costingan does not teach or suggest modifying the cameras of a multi-camera system to have different light acquisition configurations (e.g., different exposures or gains) relative to one another.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Office Action must show that the prior art teaches or suggests all claim limitations. Here, the Office Action fails to identify any teaching in Smith or Costingan regarding the modification of camera sensor settings to differ between two cameras imaging the same object. The motivation to combine offered, "to improve accuracy" does not explain why a person of ordinary skill would modify Smith's spatial coverage approach to include the claimed radiometric differentiation ( different light acquisition configurations).”
Examiner disagrees.
Costingan discloses [0029] – a laser projects a line.
Obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
It is the combination of Thomas in view of Costingan disclose the language above. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Thomas with a laser line projector configured to project a laser line as taught by Costingan. The motivation for doing is to improve accuracy thus has a better measurement.
Applicant asserts “Claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 depend from independent Claims 1, 9, and 16, respectively, and include all limitations thereof. By virtue of their dependence from a patentable independent claim, these claims are allowable for at least the reasons set forth above.”
Regarding dependent claims 2 - 5, 7, 9, and 12 - 15, the Applicant asserts that they are not obvious over based on their dependency from independent claim 1, 6, 8, and 10 respectively. The examiner cannot concur with the Applicant respectfully from same reason noted in the examiner’s response to argument asserted from claim 1, 6, 8, and 10 respectively.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ming Wu whose telephone number is (571) 270-0724. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday.
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, Devona Faulk can be reached on 571-272-7515. 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.
/Ming Wu/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2616