DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This is in response to application no. 18/267,463 filed on June 15, 2023. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 5, 8 and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a confidence for the pixel, and to decide whether a depth measurement of the pixel is false or not based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel and based on the confidence of the pixel.” The recited claim element “confidence for the pixel…the confidence of the pixel” creates ambiguity because the claim fails to specify what the “confidence” represents (e.g., confidence value, score etc. ), thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “the confidence of the pixel”, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claim 8 recites “wherein applying the sharpening filter to the reflectance image comprises determining a mean reflectance of pixels of the reflectance image in the neighborhood of the pixel.” The recited claim element “a mean reflectance of pixels” creates ambiguity because the use of a term “mean” indicates that the “reflectance” should be represented by certain value. The claim fail to specify what is being represented by the “mean reflectance”, thereby renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 13 recites “wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a confidence for the spot peak pixel, and to decide whether a depth measurement of the spot peak pixel is false or not if the confidence is below a predetermined threshold and the filtered reflectance value of the spot peak pixel is below zero.” The recited claim element “a confidence for the spot peak pixel…the confidence is below ” creates ambiguity because the claim fails to specify what the “confidence” represents (e.g., confidence value, score etc. ), thereby renders the claim indefinite.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KWON et al. (US 20180068424 A1).
Regarding claim 1, KWON et al. (US 20180068424 A1) teaches the claim as follows:
An electronic device comprising circuitry configured to apply a reflectance sharpening filter to a reflectance image obtained according to an indirect Time-of-Flight, iToF, principle ( ¶0033-0036, 0055: the ToF measuring apparatus 1…generates a depth image by calculating a phase of measured light reflected by the subject 2. ¶0057-0058: The sharpening filter processor 120 may operate when the ToF measuring apparatus 1 captures a sample subject which is provided for a purpose of designing a sharpening filter…when the image sensor 50 senses IR light reflected by the sample subject and incident via the optical shutter 40, the sharpening filter processor 120 models a spread characteristic of IR light reflected…based on an intensity distribution of IR light sensed by pixels in the image sensor 50) to obtain a filtered reflectance value for a pixel of the reflectance image (¶0064: The corrector 130 of the processor 10 corrects (i.e., adjusts) pixel values of the IR images by using the previously acquired (stored) sharpening filter. At this time, the corrector 130 may perform correction (or an adjustment) by performing a convolution operation on the pixel values of the IR images using the sharpening filter. ¶0065: …the corrected (i.e., adjusted) pixel values).
Regarding claim 10, KWON teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify spots captured by an iToF sensor, and wherein each pixel of the reflectance image is associated with a respective spot of the spots captured by the iToF sensor (¶0064-0066: The ToF calculator 140 acquires depth values of the scene by calculating ToFs of respective pixels based on the corrected (i.e., adjusted) pixel values). Note that this interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the current application. See the current application page 5.
Regarding claim 11, KWON teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further configured to identify spots captured by an iToF sensor (¶0064-0066: The ToF calculator 140 acquires depth values of the scene by calculating ToFs of respective pixels based on the corrected (i.e., adjusted) pixel values). Note that this interpretation is consistent with the disclosure of the current application. See the current application page 5, wherein the pixel is a spot peak pixel of a respective spot of the spots captured by the iToF sensor (¶0072: an intensity distribution of IR light sensed by the pixel array of the image sensor 50 may be as shown in FIG. 7. A region 700 showing the highest intensity of IR light may be pixels of columns disposed between pixels of about a 200th column and pixels of about a 300th column on the x axis), and wherein the kernel of the reflectance sharpening filter comprises a predetermined number of spots wherein each spot corresponds to a spot peak pixel (¶0084: FIG. 13, a value of each pixel of an IR image 1300 corresponds to an intensity of reflected light sensed by each pixel of the image sensor 50. The corrector 130 corrects (i.e., adjusts) pixel values of the IR image 1300 by performing a convolution operation on the pixel values of the IR image 1300 by using a sharpening filter 1310. Although it is assumed in FIG. 13 that the sharpening filter 1310 is implemented as a 3×3 matrix for convenience of description...).
Regarding claim 14, KWON teaches the electronic device of claim 1, which further comprises an image sensor (Figs. 1: image sensor 50)
Regarding claim 15, KWON teaches the electronic device of claim 1, which further comprises a spot illuminator (Figs. 1: a light source 20).
Claim 16 drawn to a method claim and recites the limitation analogous to claim 1, and is rejected due to the same reason set forth above with respect to claim 1.
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) 2-6, 8, 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KWON et al. (US 20180068424 A1) in view of Katz et al. (US 20130129224 A1).
Regarding claim 2, KWON does not explicitly teach the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to decide based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel whether a depth measurement of the pixel is false or not.
However, Katz teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to decide based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel whether a depth measurement of the pixel is false or not (¶0062-0063: a false depth pixel of the one or more false depth pixels may be identified if a confidence value associated with the false depth pixel is less than a particular confidence threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON ToF measurement apparatus by incorporating the teaching of Katz as noted above, in order to increasing the resolution of a depth map without sacrificing image quality (Katz:¶0026).
Regarding claim 3, KWON in view of Katz teaches the electronic device of claim 2. Katz further discloses wherein the circuitry is configured to decide that a depth measurement of the pixel is false if the filtered reflectance value of the pixel is below zero (¶0062-0063: a false depth pixel of the one or more false depth pixels may be identified if a confidence value associated with the false depth pixel is less than a particular confidence threshold). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 2 applies here.
Regarding claim 4, KWON does not teach wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a confidence for the pixel, and to decide whether a depth measurement of the pixel is false or not based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel and based on the confidence of the pixel.
However, Katz teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a confidence for the pixel, and to decide whether a depth measurement of the pixel is false or not based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel and based on the confidence of the pixel (¶0062-0063: a false depth pixel of the one or more false depth pixels may be identified if a confidence value associated with the false depth pixel is less than a particular confidence threshold. ¶0066: one or more bad pixels of the one or more false depth pixels are invalidated. A bad pixel of the one or more bad pixels may be invalidated if a confidence value associated with the bad pixel is below a particular invalidating threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON ToF measurement apparatus by incorporating the teaching of Katz as noted above, in order to increasing the resolution of a depth map without sacrificing image quality (Katz:¶0026).
Regarding claim 5, KWON in view of Katz teaches the electronic device of claim 4. Katz further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to decide that a depth measurement of the pixel is false if the confidence of the pixel is below a predetermined threshold and if the filtered reflectance value of the pixel is below zero (¶0062-0063: a false depth pixel of the one or more false depth pixels may be identified if a confidence value associated with the false depth pixel is less than a particular confidence threshold. ¶0066: one or more bad pixels of the one or more false depth pixels are invalidated. A bad pixel of the one or more bad pixels may be invalidated if a confidence value associated with the bad pixel is below a particular invalidating threshold). The motivation statement set forth above with respect to claim 2 applies here.
Regarding claim 6, KWON does not disclose the circuitry is configured to invalidate a depth measurement of the pixel based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel.
However, Katz teaches the circuitry is configured to invalidate a depth measurement of the pixel based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel (¶0066: one or more bad pixels of the one or more false depth pixels are invalidated. A bad pixel of the one or more bad pixels may be invalidated if a confidence value associated with the bad pixel is below a particular invalidating threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON ToF measurement apparatus by incorporating the teaching of Katz as noted above, in order to increasing the resolution of a depth map without sacrificing image quality (Katz:¶0026).
Regarding claim 8, KWON does not disclose wherein applying the sharpening filter to the reflectance image comprises determining a mean reflectance of pixels of the reflectance image in the neighborhood of the pixel.
However, Katz teaches wherein applying the sharpening filter to the reflectance image comprises determining a mean reflectance of pixels of the reflectance image in the neighborhood of the pixel (¶0065: a particular confidence value may be updated by assigning a new confidence value based on an average confidence value associated with the neighboring pixels from which the updated depth value was determined).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON ToF measurement apparatus by incorporating the teaching of Katz as noted above, in order to increasing the resolution of a depth map without sacrificing image quality (Katz:¶0026).
Regarding claim 12, KWON does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to invalidate all depth measurements related to a spot of the spots captured by an iToF sensor based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel.
However, Katz teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to invalidate all depth measurements related to a spot of the spots captured by an iToF sensor based on the filtered reflectance value of the pixel (¶0062: a curvature filter (e.g., comprising a 3x3 kernel) may be applied to each depth pixel and its neighboring pixels in order to generate a curvature filter output and a local image contrast filter (e.g., comprising a 5.times.5 kernel) may be applied to each depth pixel and its neighboring pixels in order to generate a local image contrast filter output. ¶0066: In step 636, one or more bad pixels of the one or more false depth pixels are invalidated. A bad pixel of the one or more bad pixels may be invalidated if a confidence value associated with the bad pixel is below a particular invalidating threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON ToF measurement apparatus by incorporating the teaching of Katz as noted above, in order to increasing the resolution of a depth map without sacrificing image quality (Katz:¶0026).
Regarding claim 13, KWON does not explicitly disclose wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a confidence for the spot peak pixel, and to decide whether a depth measurement of the spot peak pixel is false or not if the confidence is below a predetermined threshold and the filtered reflectance value of the spot peak pixel is below zero.
However, Katz teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to determine a confidence for the spot peak pixel, and to decide whether a depth measurement of the spot peak pixel is false or not if the confidence is below a predetermined threshold and the filtered reflectance value of the spot peak pixel is below zero (¶0062-0063: a false depth pixel of the one or more false depth pixels may be identified if a confidence value associated with the false depth pixel is less than a particular confidence threshold. ¶0066: one or more bad pixels of the one or more false depth pixels are invalidated. A bad pixel of the one or more bad pixels may be invalidated if a confidence value associated with the bad pixel is below a particular invalidating threshold).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON ToF measurement apparatus by incorporating the teaching of Katz as noted above, in order to increasing the resolution of a depth map without sacrificing image quality (Katz:¶0026).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KWON et al. (US 20180068424 A1) in view of Vianello et al. "Depth images super-resolution: An iterative approach," 2014 IEEE International Conference on Image Processing (ICIP), Paris, France, 2014, pp. 3778-3782.
Regarding claim 7, KWON teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the filtered reflectance value of the pixel is determined based on the reflectance values of pixels in the reflectance image (¶0064: The corrector 130 of the processor 10 corrects (i.e., adjusts) pixel values of the IR images by using the previously acquired (stored) sharpening filter. At this time, the corrector 130 may perform correction (or an adjustment) by performing a convolution operation on the pixel values of the IR images using the sharpening filter. ¶0065: …the corrected (i.e., adjusted) pixel values).
KWON teaches does not explicitly disclose the filtered reflectance value of the pixel is determined based on … a predetermined sharpening factor.
However, Vianello teaches the filtered reflectance value of the pixel is determined based on … a predetermined sharpening factor (abstract, Section 5: weighted joint bilateral filter (WJBF) calculated using weighing factor α).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify KWON by incorporating the teaching of Vianello as noted above, in order to obtain a high resolution depth image (Vianello: Section 9).
The following is the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Waku et al. (US 20220075069 A1) describes “distance-measuring imaging devices that measure a distance to a target object.” ¶0002.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHNAEL AYNALEM whose telephone number is (571)270-1482. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5:30 PM ET.
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, SATH PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at 571-272-7455. 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.
/NATHNAEL AYNALEM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488