DETAILED ACTION
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 –
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raag US 2022/0308228 hereinafter referred to as Raag.
In regards to claim 1, Raag teaches:
“A depth imaging system for imaging a surrounding of the system”
Raag paragraph [0324] and Figure 3 teach In some embodiments, a mobile robot 20 as depicted in FIG. 3 can be equipped with front ToF sensor 10, front stereo cameras, side ToF sensors 10 and side stereo cameras. These sensors can be used for measuring distances to objects. Furthermore, their measurements can be combined to improve the accuracy of distance measurements.
“comprising: an active phase imaging (PI) system for imaging the surrounding in the far field of the system”
Raag paragraph [0324] teaches a mobile robot 20 as depicted in FIG. 3 can be equipped with front ToF sensor 10, front stereo cameras, side ToF sensors 10 and side stereo cameras. The Examiner interprets the ToF sensor 10 as an active phase imaging system.
“and an ray imaging (RI) system for imaging the surrounding in the near field of the system”
Raag paragraph [0324] teaches a mobile robot 20 as depicted in FIG. 3 can be equipped with front ToF sensor 10, front stereo cameras, side ToF sensors 10 and side stereo cameras. The Examiner interprets the stereo cameras as a ray imaging system.
In regards to claim 2, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the RI system is used for imaging the surrounding up to a first distance d1 from the imaging system”
Raag paragraph [0324] teaches for near objects (e.g. objects between distance A and B for the front or A and C for the sides) the measurements of the stereo cameras can be used.
In regards to claim 4, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the RI system comprises an additional camera system configured for imaging independent from the PI system”
Raag paragraph [0324] teaches a mobile robot 20 as depicted in FIG. 3 can be equipped with front ToF sensor 10, front stereo cameras, side ToF sensors 10 and side stereo cameras. The Examiner interprets that stereo cameras are a different camera system and independent from the ToF imaging system.
In regards to claim 9, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the PI system is a time of flight (ToF) system configured to image imaging light in the near infrared spectral range”
Raag paragraph [0021] teaches the distance to an object and/or surface on the field of view of the ToF sensor can be obtained by emitting a measuring signal comprising infrared light, such as electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 700-1400 nm.
In regards to claim 10, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
“wherein the RI system is configured to image imaging light in the visual spectral range”
Raag paragraph [0052] teaches the method can further comprise providing at least one visual camera configured to capture at least one visual image comprising features. The visual camera can be configured to sense visual light (e.g. electromagnetic waves with wavelengths between 380-740 nm)
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raag in view of Molnar et al. US 2020/01919967 hereinafter referred to as Molnar.
In regards to claim 5, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the PI system and the RI system are combined to a common detector system”
Molnar paragraph [0010] teaches combining light field (LF) and TOF imaging into a single, on-chip, hybrid 3D imaging system. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag in view of Molnar to have included the features of “wherein the PI system and the RI system are combined to a common detector system” because Such a system would inherit light field advantages such as post-capture digital refocusing with TOF advantages of high resolution depth information and the mitigated multipath interference using coded signals (Molnar [0010]).
In regards to claim 6, Raag/Molnar teaches all the limitations of claim 5 and further teaches:
“wherein the common detector system comprises a microlens array or a diffractive element in front of pixels of a detector of the PI system”
Molnar paragraph [0040] and Figure 7A teaches three exemplary pixel designs for single-shot camera systems for capturing depth fields. Microlenses, amplitude masks, or diffraction gratings are placed over top of photogates to capture light field and TOF information simultaneously. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag in view of Molnar to have included the features of “wherein the common detector system comprises a microlens array or a diffractive element in front of pixels of a detector of the PI system” because Such a system would inherit light field advantages such as post-capture digital refocusing with TOF advantages of high resolution depth information and the mitigated multipath interference using coded signals (Molnar [0010]).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raag in view of Yamada US 2018/0275278 hereinafter referred to as Yamada.
In regards to claim 7, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“further comprising a control module configured to individually control the PI system and the RI system based on monitored pixel metrics”
Yamada Figure 1 teaches the capture control unit sends a signal to both the ToF camera 11 and Spatial camera 12. Figure 10 illustrates that the exposure time of the ToF camera is monitored (step S924) separately and prior to the exposure time of the spatial light camera (step S926). The Examiner interprets this as individually controlled based on monitored pixel metrics (pixel exposure). It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag in view of Yamada to have included the features of “further comprising a control module configured to individually control the PI system and the RI system based on monitored pixel metrics” because this configuration provides an effect of synthesizing the measurement results of the distances in the time-of-flight distance measurement camera and the spatial information distance measurement camera to improve the distance measurement accuracy (Yamada [0007]).
In regards to claim 11, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“wherein the imaging light for the RI system may have the same wavelength as the illumination light for the PI system”
Yamada Figure 13 teaches the ToF pixel 111 and the imaging element 121 operated using the reflected light. Yamada Figure 10 and paragraphs [0093]-[0094] teaches the light source generation 131 provides the light for both the ToF pixel and the imaging element. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag in view of Yamada to have included the features of “wherein the imaging light for the RI system may have the same wavelength as the illumination light for the PI system” because this configuration provides an effect of synthesizing the measurement results of the distances in the time-of-flight distance measurement camera and the spatial information distance measurement camera to improve the distance measurement accuracy (Yamada [0007]).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raag in view of Yamada in view of Malkin et al. US 2022/0141445 hereinafter referred to as Malkin.
In regards to claim 8, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“further comprising a depth image processor adapted to derive from an captured image PI depth values by PI depth algorithms, [depth] values by image signal algorithms, and RI depth values by RI depth algorithms”
Yamada Figure 13, inter alia teach depth calculation unit 113 which calculates depth values from the captured ToF pixel. The Examiner interprets the logic used by the depth calculation unit 113 as an algorithm. Yamada Figure 13 also teaches depth calculation unit 123 which calculates depth values from imaging element 121. The Examiner interprets the logic used by depth calculation unit 123 as an algorithm. Yamada teaches in paragraph [0079] and Figure 8., inter alia, The depth synthesis processing unit 163 integrates and outputs the two depth value, coordinate positions of which are aligned by the coordinate transformation units 161 and 162, on the basis of the magnitude of the reliability. For example, depth synthesis can be performed selecting the depth value with the highest reliability for each pixel. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag in view of Yamada to have included the features of “further comprising a depth image processor adapted to derive from an captured image PI depth values by PI depth algorithms, [depth] values by image signal algorithms, and RI depth values by RI depth algorithms” because this configuration provides an effect of synthesizing the measurement results of the distances in the time-of-flight distance measurement camera and the spatial information distance measurement camera to improve the distance measurement accuracy (Yamada [0007]).
“intensity [values]”
The calculation of intensity values for depth imaging is well-known. Malkin teaches in paragraph [0084] This process is repeated until all the relevant subframes are processed. As a last step, all intermediate results are read from the DDR and final depth and intensity values are calculated. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag/Yamada in view of Malkin to have included the features of “intensity [values]” because there is a need for architectures and techniques that render 3D cameras, including ToF cameras, useful in applications requiring a high degree of safety and conformance to industry-recognized safety standards (Malkin [0024]).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raag in view of Yamada in view of Aramaki US 2020/0410219 hereinafter referred to as Aramaki.
In regards to claim 12, Raag teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach:
“further comprising a control module configured to individually control the PI system and the RI system …”
Yamada Figure 1 teaches the capture control unit sends a signal to both the ToF camera 11 and Spatial camera 12. Figure 10 illustrates that the exposure time of the ToF camera is monitored (step S924) separately and prior to the exposure time of the spatial light camera (step S926). The Examiner interprets this as individually. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag in view of Yamada to have included the features of “further comprising a control module configured to individually control the PI system and the RI system …” because this configuration provides an effect of synthesizing the measurement results of the distances in the time-of-flight distance measurement camera and the spatial information distance measurement camera to improve the distance measurement accuracy (Yamada [0007]).
Raag/Yamada do not explicitly teach:
“[further comprising a control module configured to control the camera system] based on an actual prospected motion profile of the system”
Aramaki paragraph [0005] teaches to obtain a plurality of images photographed by a camera carried by a movable body, determine movement of a photographed objects based on the plurality of images, determine movement of the movable body, detect whether the photographed object is a moving object based on the movement of the photographed object and the movement of the movable body to obtain a detection result, and control a photographing condition of the camera based on the detection result. It would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the invention was effectively filed to have modified Raag/Yamada in view of Aramaki to have included the features of “[further comprising a control module configured to control the camera system] based on an actual prospected motion profile of the system” to detect presence of a peripheral approaching vehicle/peripheral cutting-in vehicle in an optical flow in a same direction as the moving direction of an assumed image when the peripheral approaching vehicle/peripheral cutting-in vehicle exists (Aramaki [0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-5996. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM EST.
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, John Miller can be reached at 571-272-7353. 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.
/MICHAEL E TEITELBAUM, Ph.D./ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422