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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 12/05/2025 wherein Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-22 pending. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 10, 12-13, 15-16, and 21 and 18 have been amended. Claims 3 and 14 were cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Regarding objections: Applicant’s arguments were found persuasive. The objections are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 USC 101 rejection: Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-22 were fully considered but found not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims present the data manipulation and filtering the data, lacking additional elements and practical application. Practical application must be shown using meaningful additional elements. The additional elements, cited by the Applicant, are recited in generality and do not recite particular machines applying or being used by the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05, specifically about the particular machine: see part I, The particularity or generality of the elements of the machine or apparatus; Part II, Whether the machine or apparatus implements the steps of the method, and Part III, Whether its involvement is extra-solution activity of a field-of use). Prior art cited in the rejection, shows claimed additional elements as well-known in the art, routine and conventional
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection: Applicant’s arguments regarding Claims 1-2 and 4-19 were fully considered. In view of the amendments to the claims, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, and 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a machine/process. The below claim is considered to be a statutory category (machine).
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belongs to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Independent Claim 1 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea highlighted in bold; the remaining limitations are ‘’additional elements’’.
An apparatus for enhancing depth representations generated by a time-of-flight (TOF) depth-sensing system, the apparatus comprising:
at least one memory; and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and configured to:
obtain a depth representation of a scene, the depth representation comprising a plurality of depth values based on a ToF signal;
obtain a plurality of amplitude values corresponding to the plurality of depth values of the depth representation, wherein the plurality of amplitude values are based on the ToF signal;
identify a plurality of windows of depth values of the depth representation;
determine a plurality of noise thresholds based on a plurality of center depth values and a plurality of center amplitude values, each of the plurality of center depth values, each of the plurality of center amplitude values, and each of the plurality of noise thresholds corresponding to a respective window of the plurality of windows;
determine a plurality of adaptive filters based on the plurality of windows and the plurality of noise thresholds: and
filter the depth representation using the plurality of adaptive filters.
Under the Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, it recites limitations that fall into abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that when recited as such in a claim limitation covers mathematical processes (mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Steps of “determine a plurality of noise thresholds based on a plurality of center depth values and a plurality of center amplitude values, each of the plurality of center depth values, each of the plurality of center amplitude values, and each of the plurality of noise thresholds corresponding to a respective window of the plurality of windows”; “determine a plurality of adaptive filters based on the plurality of windows and the plurality of noise thresholds”; and “filter the depth representation using the plurality of adaptive filters” are treated by the Examiner as belonging to mathematical process grouping, while the step of “identify a plurality of windows of depth values of the depth representation” is treated as belonging to mental process grouping.
With regards to the mental steps, according to the 2019 PEG: “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for ‘‘anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be ‘‘performed by humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (‘‘Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's mind.”).”
Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite additional elements or a combination of additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This requires additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea.
In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
The additional elements: “apparatus”, “time-of-flight (TOF) depth-sensing system”,
“memory”, “processor”, “obtain a depth representation of a scene, the depth representation comprising a plurality of depth values based on a ToF signal”; and “obtain a plurality of amplitude values corresponding to the plurality of depth values of the depth representation, wherein the plurality of amplitude values are based on the ToF signal” add extra-solution activities (i.e., mere data gathering, source/type of data to be manipulated) using elements recited at a high level of generality (see MPEP 2106.05(g)); generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)); and add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The preamble of Claim 1: “An apparatus for enhancing depth representations generated by a time-of-flight (TOF) depth-sensing system” is a generically recited preamble.
Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In this particular case, the claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.) The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond v Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process).
Therefore, the claim is directed to a judicial exception and requires further analysis under the Step 2B.
Step 2B of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2A, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Essentially, the above claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B analysis) because they are well-understood and conventional in the relevant art of US20200096638 to Chen (hereinafter Chen) and US20150253429 to Dorrington et al. (hereinafter Dorrington).
Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Similar analysis has been applied to independent Claim 12. The independent claims, therefore, are not patent eligible.
With regards to the dependent claims, Claims 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-22 merely add limitations which further detail the abstract idea, namely further mathematical steps detailing how the data processing algorithm is implemented, i.e. additional limitations corresponding to mathematical relationship grouping. These limitations do not help to integrate the claims into a practical application or make them significantly more than the abstract idea (which is recited in slightly more detail, but not in enough detail to be considered to narrow the claims to a particular practical application).
The dependent claims are, therefore, also ineligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Claims 1 and 12 include the allowable subject matter. If the 101 issues are resolved, Claims 1 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101, set forth in this Office Action.
In regards to Claim 1, the teachings of Chen, Dorrington, Krupka, combined show all the elements of the claim except “identifying a plurality of windows of depth values of the depth representation; determining a plurality of noise thresholds based on a plurality of center depth values and a plurality of center amplitude values, each of the plurality of center depth values, each of the plurality of center amplitude values, and each of the plurality of noise thresholds corresponding to a respective window of the plurality of windows; determine a plurality of adaptive filters based on the plurality of windows and the plurality of noise thresholds: and filtering the depth representation using the plurality of adaptive filters”, in combination with the rest of the claim’s limitations as claimed and defined by the applicant.
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.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230134806 to Sathiaseelan et al. (hereinafter Sathiaseelan) discloses denoising depth image data using neural networks.
US20170316602 to Smirnov et al. (hereinafter Smirnov) discloses method for alignment of low-quality noisy depth map to the high-resolution colour image.
US20160239725A1 to Liu et al. (hereinafter Liu) discloses method for denoising time-of-flight range images.
US20120293635A1 to Sharma et al. (hereinafter Sharma) discloses head pose estimation using rgbd camera.
US20050031166 to Fujimura et al. (hereinafter Fujimura) discloses visual tracking using depth data.
US20170322309 to Godbaz et al. (hereinafter Godbaz) discloses specular reflection removal in time-of-flight camera apparatus.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lyudmila Zaykova-Feldman whose telephone number is (469)295-9269. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 4:30pm, Monday through Friday.
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, Arleen Vazquez, can be reached on 571-272-2619. 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.
/LYUDMILA ZAYKOVA-FELDMAN/
Examiner Art Unit 2857
/LINA CORDERO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857