DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2023, 04/12/2024 and 09/01/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 1 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.
That is, claim 1 specifies the variable I as a fringe sum of the basic fringe sequence, and then specifies that I≤I0, yet I0 is not properly defined in itself within the claim language. In other words, the claim does not define what I0 is, despite having a relationship with I.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant.
In regards to claim 1, Neda teaches a color projection component (See FIG. 1.2 wherein the color projection component is taught as the Stripe projector), configured to project a color fringe pattern to a surface of a measured object (See Section 2.2.2.1 Methods Applicable To Dynamic Scenes and Section 3.2 Projecting a Pattern wherein a sample of a De Bruijn color pattern is also shown), wherein the color fringe pattern comprises m periodically-repeated basic fringe sequences, and m is a positive integer (See Section 3.2 Projecting a Pattern with reference to FIG. 3.5(C) and 3.5(D) wherein these De Bruijn patterns may be repeated two or three times);
the basic fringe sequence comprises k kinds of fringes different in color, and an n-bit fringe sequence composed of any consecutive n fringes is unique (See Section 2.2.2.1 De Bruijn Stripe Pattern with reference to FIG. 2.8); and
a fringe sum l of the basic fringe sequences satisfies l≤l0, l0=kn, wherein k and n are both integers greater than or equal to 2 (In the examples given in FIG. 2.8, 3.5(C) and 3.5(D), k=5 and n=3, giving 125 fringes).
In regards to claim 2, Neda teaches the color projection component as claimed in claim 1, wherein the basic fringe sequences are arranged based on a DeBruijn sequence (See Section 2.2.2.1 De Bruijn Stripe Pattern with reference to FIG. 2.8).
In regards to claim 4, Neda teaches the color projection component as claimed in claim 1, wherein in the same cycle, at least part of fringe spacing is different (See Section 2.2.2.1 De Bruijn Stripe Pattern with reference to FIG. 2.8 wherein different spacing may be seen within this one cycle).
In regards to claim 5, Neda teaches the color projection component as claimed in claim 1, wherein k is 3, or n is 3, or both k and n are 3 (In the examples given in FIG. 2.8, 3.5(C) and 3.5(D), k=5 and n=3, giving 125 fringes).
In regards to claim 15, Neda teaches a three-dimensional measurement system based on color fringe-encoded structured light, comprising a color projection component and a camera component between which a preset included angle is formed (See at least pg. 2, 5, FIG. 1.2 and FIG. 2.9), wherein the color projection component is the color projection component as claimed in claim 1 (See the rejection of claim 1), and is configured to project a color fringe pattern to a surface of a measured object (See FIG. 1.2 and 2.4 as examples); and
the camera component is configured to collect a fringe pattern modulated by the surface of the measured object, and in the fringe pattern, fringes in each cycle are not overlapped (See FIG. 3.5(C) and 3.5(D) where it can be seen that the cycles are not overlapped).
In regards to claim 18, Neda teaches the system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the color projection component is implemented by manners such as Digital Light Processing (DLP), Liquid Crystal On Silicon (LCOS) or transmissive projection (See at least FIG. 1.2); and
the camera component comprises a color image sensor, or comprises a beam splitting system and at least two image acquisition sensors (See at least FIG. 1.2 in view of FIG. 2.10 and FIG. 3.6 as examples).
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, 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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant, in view of Davies (U.S. PG Publication No. 2017/0272376).
In regards to claim 3, Neda fails to teach the color projection component as claimed in claim 1, wherein in every two adjacent cycles, at least part of fringe spacing is different.
In a similar endeavor Davies teaches wherein in every two adjacent cycles, at least part of fringe spacing is different (See ¶0074 wherein identifiers may be placed between repeated sequences [cycles], thus giving different fringe spacing).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Davies into Neda because it allows for identification of the group of packets carried in that cycle as described in ¶0074.
Claim(s) 6, 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant, in view of Tornero-Martínez et al. (“Marti”) (“Color profilometry techniques: A review”, OPTICA PURA Y APLICADA, vol. 51, no. 4, 23 December 2018, pages 1-26), as also submitted by applicant.
In regards to claim 6, Neda fails to teach the color projection component as claimed in claim 5, wherein 3 kinds of different colors are red, green and blue respectively.
In a similar endeavor Marti teaches wherein 3 kinds of different colors are red, green and blue respectively (See ¶1 of pg. 17 in view of FIG. 22).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Marti into Neda because it allows for unique three character coding that is not repeated throughout the pattern as described in pg. 17.
In regards to claim 7, Neda and Marti together teach a color fringe decoding method, decoding a fringe pattern obtained after projection by the color projection component as claimed in claim 1 to a surface of a measured object and collected by a camera component (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti in view of claim 1 rejection by Neda), wherein the decoding method comprising:
obtaining the fringe pattern on the surface of the measured object (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti);
determining pixel coordinates of a center of each fringe based on the fringe pattern (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti wherein it is understood that a center of any fringe may be obtained from the captured image data, of course the coordinates are to be considered and calculated as a 3D reconstruction is created --- which itself would require such coordinate calculation in order to be a proper 3D reconstruction);
determining a number of each fringe based on the pixel coordinates and a corresponding color (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti wherein the system creates the number of each fringe, and thus uses this information for the calculation of pixel coordinates, otherwise the technique wouldn’t be able to create a 3D reconstruction; the examiner recommends reading the references 25-28 as described by Marti and created by S. Zhang et al. for a further understanding of this with regards to fringe creation and placement); and
performing three-dimensional reconstruction on each fringe based on the number of each fringe to determine three-dimensional point coordinates of the measured object (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti in view of FIG. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Marti into Neda because it allows for unique three character coding that is not repeated throughout the pattern as described in pg. 17.
In regards to claim 11, Neda and Marti together teach a color fringe decoding device, configured to execute the decoding method as claimed in claim 7, wherein the decoding device comprising:
a fringe pattern acquiring component, configured to acquire a fringe pattern on a surface of a measured object (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti);
a pixel coordinate determining component, configured to determine, based on the fringe pattern, pixel coordinates of a center of each fringe (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti wherein it is understood that a center of any fringe may be obtained from the captured image data, of course the coordinates are to be considered and calculated as a 3D reconstruction is created --- which itself would require such coordinate calculation in order to be a proper 3D reconstruction);
a number determining component, configured to determine, based on the pixel coordinates and a corresponding color, a number of each fringe (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti wherein the system creates the number of each fringe, and thus uses this information for the calculation of pixel coordinates, otherwise the technique wouldn’t be able to create a 3D reconstruction; the examiner recommends reading the references 25-28 as described by Marti and created by S. Zhang et al. for a further understanding of this with regards to fringe creation and placement); and
a three-dimensional point coordinate determining component, configured to perform, based on the number of each fringe, three-dimensional reconstruction on each fringe, and determine three-dimensional point coordinates of the measured object (See last paragraph of pg. 10 of Marti in view of FIG. 9).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Marti into Neda because it allows for unique three character coding that is not repeated throughout the pattern as described in pg. 17.
Claim(s) 13, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant, in view of Tornero-Martínez et al. (“Marti”) (“Color profilometry techniques: A review”, OPTICA PURA Y APLICADA, vol. 51, no. 4, 23 December 2018, pages 1-26) and Davies (U.S. PG Publication No. 2017/0272376).
In regards to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 7 by Neda in view of Marti, this is taken in further view of Davies which teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer programs, wherein the computer programs, when executed by a processor, make the processor implement the decoding method according to as claimed in claim 7 as seen in ¶0019-0020 and 0040.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Davies into Neda because it allows for the use of a computer-readable medium for such methods and their executions via processors as described by Davies in at least ¶0019-0020.
In regards to claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 7 by Neda in view of Marti, this is taken in further view of Davies which teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing computer programs, wherein the computer programs, when executed by a processor, make the processor implement the decoding method according to as claimed in claim 7 as seen in ¶0019-0020 and 0040.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Davies into Neda because it allows for the use of a computer-readable medium for such methods and their executions via processors as described by Davies in at least ¶0019-0020.
In regards to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same basis as claim 7 by Neda in view of Marti, this is taken in further view of Davies which teaches further comprising a data processing component, wherein the data processing component is configured to receive the fringe pattern and execute the decoding method as claimed in claim 7 as seen in ¶0019-0020 and 0040.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Davies into Neda because it allows for the use of a computer-readable medium for such methods and their executions via processors as described by Davies in at least ¶0019-0020.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant, in view of Saphier et al. (“Saphier”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0404243).
In regards to claim 16, Neda fails to teach the system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the color projection component and the camera component are arranged in the same intraoral scanner.
In a similar endeavor Saphier teaches wherein the color projection component and the camera component are arranged in the same intraoral scanner (See ¶0006, 0009 and 0034).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Saphier into Neda because it allows to provide more accurate results by reducing a difference between estimated maps and a true structure of the intraoral three-dimensional surface as described in ¶0034.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant, in view of Tinch et al. (“Tinch”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2017/0255016).
In regards to claim 19, Neda fails to teach the color projection component as claimed in claim 1, the color projection component comprises a three-color light source, a mirror array and a control system; and
the control system is configured to adjust an angle of each mirror in the mirror array, such that the mirror reflects light with a corresponding color, thereby projecting a preset color fringe pattern.
In a similar endeavor Tinch teaches the color projection component comprises a three-color light source, a mirror array and a control system (See ¶0125); and
the control system is configured to adjust an angle of each mirror in the mirror array, such that the mirror reflects light with a corresponding color, thereby projecting a preset color fringe pattern (See ¶0123-0125 in view of Neda’s teachings with regards to the creation of specific patterns).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Tinch into Neda because it allows for the redirection of waveguides into different depth places as described in ¶0125 with the use of a mirror array to route light towards a desired output.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neda Aslsabbaghpourhokmabadi (“Neda”) (“Single-Shot Accurate 3D Reconstruction Using Structured Light Systems Based on Local Optimization”, 1 January 2015 (2015-01-01), pages 1-93, XP093164324, DOI: https://doi.org/10.7939/R36M33F23 Retrieved from the Internet: URL:https://era.library.ualberta.ca/items/c351c140-ad43-4e79-b358-fb5a3d36c79a/download/f07a24d1-6f75-46a3-aa50-e09f97f4e4c9 [retrieved on 2024-05-19]), as submitted by applicant, in view of Horiba et al. (“Horiba”) (U.S. PG Publication No. 2020/0158662).
In regards to claim 20, Neda fails to teach the decoding method as claimed in claim 9, judging whether decoding on a current fringe is misaligned, comprises: in response to that the three-dimensional points are recognized to be distributed in the corrugated state, recognizing that the corresponding fringes have cycle misalignment.
In a similar endeavor Horiba teaches judging whether decoding on a current fringe is misaligned, comprises:
in response to that the three-dimensional points are recognized to be distributed in the corrugated state, recognizing that the corresponding fringes have cycle misalignment (See ¶0010, 0013-0017 and 0074).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Horiba into Nema because it allows for detection of misalignment of fringes and corresponding correction through adjustments as described in at least ¶0074.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 and 12 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDEMIO NAVAS JR whose telephone number is (571)270-1067. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, ~ 9 AM -6 PM.
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, Joseph Ustaris can be reached on 5712727383. 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.
EDEMIO NAVAS JR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2483
/EDEMIO NAVAS JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2483