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 statement (IDS) submitted on 9/20/2024 and 9/18/2024 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(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.
1: Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 2023/0316558 A1 Takano et al.
2: As for Claim 1, Takano et al teaches a method of recognizing a shape using a multizone time-of-flight (ToF) sensor (Paragraphs [0029 and [0003]), the method comprising: receiving, by a processor (elements 23 and 24 discussed in Paragraph [0031]), ToF data (distance data for each pixel/region) indicating an object located within a field of view of the multizone ToF sensor (Paragraph [0008]), the ToF data comprising a two-dimensional array of zone data, each of the zone data corresponding to a zone of the field of view of the multizone ToF sensor and comprising distance information and additional signal information (reliability determination Paragraph [0009]); and recognizing, by the processor, the object as the shape using the distance information and the additional signal information of the two-dimensional array (Paragraphs [0042 and 0043]).
3: As for Claim 4, Takano et al in Paragraph [0008] wherein the ToF data (depth data for different pixels/regions of the image) corresponds to a single frame measured by the multizone ToF sensor (multiple region of the captured image are analyzed).
4: As for Claim 5, Takano et al in Paragraphs [0043 and 0047] further comprising: determining, by the processor (CPU and GPU discussed in Paragraph [0031]), the closest zone in the ToF data using the distance information of the zone data (all distances to the corresponding objects are determined including the closest distance); and ignoring the ToF data (obtained distance values not within a predetermined range are identified and imparted with a low reliability rating for calculations) if the closest zone is outside a predetermined distance range.
5: As for Claim 8, Takano et al teaches a method of recognizing a shape using a multizone time-of-flight (ToF) sensor (Paragraphs [0029 and [0003]), the method comprising: receiving, by a processor (elements 23 and 24 discussed in Paragraph [0031]), ToF data (distance data for each pixel/region) indicating an object located within a field of view of the multizone ToF sensor (Paragraph [0008]), the field of view being divided into zones, the ToF data comprising signal information corresponding to each zone of the field of view of the multizone ToF sensor (reliability determination Paragraph [0009]); filtering, by the processor, the ToF data through an artificial intelligence (AI) model to create AI output data (Paragraph [0036]); and recognizing, by the processor, the object as the shape using the AI output data (Paragraphs [0029 and [0003]).
6: As for Claim 9, Takano et al teaches in Paragraph [0008] wherein the ToF data (depth data for different pixels/regions of the image) corresponds to a single frame measured by the multizone ToF sensor (multiple region of the captured image are analyzed).
7: As for Claim 11, Takano et al teaches in Paragraph [0036] wherein the AI model is a convolutional neural network (CNN).
8: As for Claim 16, Takano et al teaches A shape recognition device comprising: a multizone time-of-flight (ToF) sensor (Paragraphs [0029 and [0003]) comprising a field of view divided into zones and configured to generate ToF data indicating an object located within the field of view of the multizone ToF sensor; and a processor coupled to the multizone ToF sensor (elements 23 and 24 discussed in Paragraph [0031]), the processor being configured to receive the ToF data from the multizone ToF sensor, the ToF data comprising signal information corresponding to each zone of the field of view of the multizone ToF sensor, filter the ToF data through an artificial intelligence (AI) model to create AI output data (Paragraph [0036]), and recognize the object as a shape using the AI output data (Paragraphs [0029 and [0003]).
9: As for Claim 20, Takano et paragraph [0003] the multizone ToF sensor is a direct ToF sensor.
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.
10: Claim(s) 2, 3, 12-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0316558 A1 Takano et al in view of Official Notice.
11: As for Claims 2 and 3, Takano et al teaches a camera system with a ToF sensor wherein the ToF sensor includes zones of the field of view of the multizone ToF sensor. However, does not teach the zones are arranged as a single 8 by 8 array.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ToF sensor including zones arranged as a single 8 by 8 array in order to efficiently capture ToF data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a single 8 by 8 array for the ToF sensor of Takano et al in order to efficiently capture ToF data.
12: As for Claims 12-15, Takano et al teaches a camera system with a ToF sensor wherein the ToF sensor wherein the signal information corresponding to each zone comprises a distance value determined according to a signal data measured by the multizone ToF sensor. However, does not teach the signal data is RAW image data and peak value data.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process image data in a RAW image format including a peak signal value in order to improve the output quality of the output image data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to process the image data from the ToF sensor of Takano el al in a RAW image format in order to improve the output quality of the output image data.
13: As for Claim 17, Takano et al teaches a camera system with a ToF sensor wherein the ToF sensor includes zones of the field of view of the multizone ToF sensor. However, does not teach the zones are arranged as a single 8 by 8 array.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a ToF sensor including zones arranged as a single 8 by 8 array in order to efficiently capture ToF data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a single 8 by 8 array for the ToF sensor of Takano et al in order to efficiently capture ToF data.
14: As for Claim 18, Takano et al teaches a camera system with a ToF sensor wherein system includes a processor. However, does not explicitly teach the processor is a microcontroller.
Official Notice is taken that it was well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use microcontrollers to control camera systems in order to improve processing speed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a microcontroller for the processor of Takano et al in order to improve processing speed.
15: As for Claim 19, Takano et al teaches in Paragraphs [0030 and 0040] wherein the processor (CPU and GPU) comprises a nonvolatile integrated memory (34), and wherein the processor is further configured to filter the ToF data and identify the object as the shape by executing instructions stored entirely in the nonvolatile integrated memory.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7 and 10 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES M HANNETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7309. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Monday thru Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Twyler Haskins can be reached at 571-272-7406 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).
/JAMES M HANNETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2639
JMH
January 20, 2026