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(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/15/2023 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the final clauses of both claims are reprinted below:
“a first positioning system formed on an exterior surface of the first housing to facilitate a connection to a second positioning system on a second housing that houses a two-dimensional camera” (emphasis added)
“a positioning system formed on the planar surface to facilitate a connection to another positioning system on another housing that houses a distance sensor including a three-dimensional camera” (emphasis added)
The italicized portions essentially are claiming an intended use/result to be achieved of the respective positioning systems. As such, they generally are not given patentable weight as they do not give any structural distinction to each apparatus in the claims (see MPEP 2144, II).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first positioning system formed on an exterior surface of the first housing to facilitate a connection to a second positioning system” in claim 1
“a positioning system formed on the planar surface to facilitate a connection to another positioning system” in claim 12
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
NOTE: the positioning systems in claim 15 are not interpreted under 112(f) as they do not satisfy the three-prong test per MPEP 2181, I. Therefore, broadest reasonable interpretation will be used for this claim instead.
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 6-14 are 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.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “The distance sensor of claim 1, further comprising the two-dimensional camera connected to the distance sensor via the positioning system.” (emphasis added) It is unclear how a distance sensor can include a two-dimensional camera attached to itself as currently worded. For the purposes of prior art rejections, claim 6 will be interpreted as a system comprising both the distance sensor of claim 1 and said two-dimensional camera. Dependent claims 7-11 do not cure claim 6 of this issue and are similarly rejected.
Regarding claim 12, the claim recites an apparatus comprising a housing, a two-dimensional camera, and a positioning system. When looking to the Specification, Figure 10 appears to show the corresponding structure. However, paragraph [0084] of the published application refers to the entirety of Figure 10 being a two-dimensional camera. This leads to uncertainty on the proper interpretation of claim 12 i.e. is the apparatus itself a two-dimensional camera (i.e. including the housing with the positioning system) per the Specification or is a two-dimensional camera in its entirety supposed to be comprised within the housing shown in Figure 10 (i.e. without the housing and positioning system). For the purposes of prior art rejections, the entire apparatus will be interpreted as the two-dimensional camera as this is inline with both the Specification and claim 15. Dependent claims 13 and 14 do not cure claim 12 of this issue, and are similarly rejected.
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou, U.S. Publication No. 2019/0278099 in view of Slatcher et al, U.S. Publication No. 2020/0285831 and Sander et al, U.S. Patent No. 6,478,474.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a distance sensor (see Zhou Figure 8 with laser projection system 100 and image collector 200), comprising:
a light projecting system including optics to project a plurality of beams of light (see Figure 1 which is an embodiment of the laser projection system 100 of Figure 8 and paragraph [0019]) in a wavelength that is invisible to a human eye (see paragraph [0044] which indicates that image collector 200 of Figure 8 can be an infrared camera which would imply that laser projection system 100 emits infrared (i.e. invisible) beams);
a light receiving system (see Figure 8, image collector 200) including a three-dimensional camera to capture an image of a pattern formed by the plurality of beams of light (see paragraph [0044] which indicates that the image collector in combination with a processor creates a depth image, thereby making the combination a three-dimensional camera);
a first housing to contain the light projecting system and the light receiving system (see paragraph [0007]).
Zhou does not expressively teach a first positioning system formed on an exterior surface of the first housing to facilitate a connection to a second positioning system on a second housing that houses a two-dimensional camera.
However, Slatcher in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system comprising a light emitting system and a three-dimensional camera (see Slatcher paragraph [0031], wherein Lidar is well-known to emit light) in a first housing (see paragraph [0048]) as taught in Zhou further comprising
a first system formed on an exterior surface of the first housing to facilitate a connection to a second positioning system on a second housing that houses a two-dimensional camera (see paragraph [0048]).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to combine the teaching of adding a system on a first housing to connect a system with a three-dimensional camera to a housing of a two-dimensional camera as taught in Slatcher with the system taught in Zhou, the motivation being to allow fusion of the two data systems thereby increasing accuracy (see Slatcher Abstract and paragraph [0057]).
Zhou in view of Slatcher does not expressively teach that the system is a positioning system as interpreted under 112(f), which per claim 4 would include a pin and bore (or structural equivalents thereof).
However, Sander in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with a housing for optical elements (see Sander Figure 5 and Abstract) comprising a system for connection to another housing (see column 2, lines 1-4) as taught in Zhou in view of Slatcher wherein
the system is a positioning system (see column 8, lines 55-63).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the positioning system taught in Zhou in view of Slatcher with that of Sander to yield the predictable results of successfully coupling the two housings.
Regarding claim 2, Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 1, but does not expressively teach wherein a datum point of the three-dimensional camera is defined on the exterior surface of the first housing, at a base of the light receiving system.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to place a datum point in such as way based on the imaging needs of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 2, but does not expressively teach wherein the datum point represents an origin of a three-dimensional coordinate system.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice arrange an arbitrary origin of a coordinate system in such a way for ease of identifying objects in the images.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first positioning system comprises:
a pin extending outward from the exterior surface; and a bore defining an opening in the exterior surface (see Sander Figure 5 as combined with Slatcher paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 4, but does not expressively teach wherein the bore is aligned with a datum point of the three-dimensional camera.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to place a datum point in such as way based on the imaging needs of the system.
Regarding claim 6, Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the two-dimensional camera connected to the distance sensor via the positioning system (see Slatcher paragraph [0048]).
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0275596.
Regarding claim 12, Ryu teaches an apparatus, comprising:
a housing (see Ryu Figure 1), the housing comprising: a base portion including a planar surface (see Figure 1, portion containing header connector 14); and an elevated portion that is coupled to and raised with respect to the base portion (see Figure 1, elements 16-20);
a two-dimensional camera (see paragraphs [0003] and [0005]. CCDs and CMOS image sensors are well-known to be used in 2D cameras), wherein optics and circuitry for the two-dimensional camera are housed within the elevated portion (see paragraph [0007]); and
a system formed on the planar surface to facilitate a connection to another positioning system (see Figure 1, header connector 14 and paragraph [0006]) on another housing that houses a distance sensor including a three-dimensional camera (see explanation given above as to why this is given little patentable weight).
Ryu does not expressively teach that the system is a positioning system as interpreted under 112(f), which per claim 13 would include a pin and bore (or structural equivalents thereof).
However, Sander in a similar invention in the same field of endeavor teaches a system with a housing for optical elements (see Sander Figure 5 and Abstract) comprising a system for connection to another housing (see column 2, lines 1-4) as taught in Ryu wherein
the system is a positioning system (see column 8, lines 55-63).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of simple substitution to replace the positioning system taught in Ryu with that of Sander to yield the predictable results of successfully coupling the two housings.
Regarding claim 13, Ryu in view of Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 12, and further teaches wherein the positioning system comprises:
a pin extending outward from the exterior surface; and a bore defining an opening in the exterior surface (see Sander Figure 5 as combined with Ryu Figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ryu in view of Sander teaches all the limitations of claim 13, but does not expressively teach wherein the bore is aligned with a datum point of the two-dimensional camera.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious as a matter of design choice to place a datum point in such as way based on the imaging needs of the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding independent claim 15, while the structure of the distance sensor is rendered obvious by Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander and the structure of the two-dimensional camera is rendered obvious by Ryu in view of Sander, Ryu does not teach that their two-dimensional camera is to be connected to a distance sensor. As noted above, this is an intended use in claims 1 and 7; however, claim 15 specifies that the two devices are mechanically connected. While Slatcher teaches that two such generic devices comprising a three-dimensional camera and a two-dimensional camera can be connected, one of ordinary skill in the art would be using impermissible hindsight to combine the structure of Ryu to the combination of Zhou in view of Slatcher and Sander to arrive at the claimed invention.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 7-11 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The same rationale applies to dependent claim 7 as applied to independent claim 15 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Johnson, U.S. Patent No. 4,268,146 teaches a two-dimensional camera with similar structure as recited in the claims (see Johnson Figure 1). However, it does not contain a positioning system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY L KRETZER whose telephone number is (571)272-5639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-7:00 PM Pacific Time.
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, David Payne can be reached at (571)272-3024. 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.
/CASEY L KRETZER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635