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 .
Election/Restrictions
In replying to the restriction requirement, the applicant elects claims 4-12 without traverse, cancels the claims 1-3, and 13-20, and presents new group of claims 21-26, and claims 27-31. These groups of claims are independent or distinct from the group of claims 4-12 elected by the applicant without traverse for the following reasons:
New group of claims 21-26
In this group, claim 25 includes ultrasound detection of distance using interference pattern of reflection of ultrasound beam which is a distinct species from the species presented in the group of claims 4-12 which includes detecting the distance by interference of light (claim 5). Distance measurement using ultrasound is distinct from the distance measurement using interference of light. Accordingly, this group should be examined separately as compared to the already elected group of claims 4-12.
New group of claims 27-31
In this group, the claims 27-31 are sub-combination of group of claims 4-12 that are already elected without traverse by the applicant. Claims 4-12 are combination and claims 27-31 are sub-combination.
Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed (i.e., claims 4-12) does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because group 4-12 includes an imager which includes a beam splitter which is not required in claim group 27-31. The subcombination has separate utility such as utility in general area of imaging without requiring an scope device.
Accordingly, claims 21-31 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Therefore, claims 21-31 are withdrawn from consideration. The election of claims 4-12 is made final.
Rejoinder
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus/combination/subcombination claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/20/2023 is 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 § 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 5-8 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.
Claim 4 recites “an imager configured to generate depth data by detecting distance…” in lines 3-4.
Claim 5 recites “an image sensor array configured to generate the depth data by detecting a coherence image comprising a reflection of the first beam from the surface and the reflection of the second beam.”
From the claim language, it is unclear whether these techniques are the same or different which makes the claim 5 unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 recites “example lens” in two instances. This term makes the claim unclear.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6-8 are rejected for being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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)(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) 4-5, 7-8, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Atiya (US 20230021695).
Regarding claim 4, Atiya discloses a scope (probe 128; FIG. 1A, 1B reproduced below), comprising:
at least one imager (cameras 132) configured to:
generate depth data by detecting a distance between the at least one imager and a surface (obtaining the depth data; para [0028]); and generate two-dimensional (2D) image data (Part of the object is imaged before obtaining the depth data; para [0028], [0047]) by detecting light reflected from the surface (light reflected from the object 136; para [0047]);
a three-dimensional (3D) display (Monitor 160 may display a 3D image; The claim does not provide any detailed features of the 3D display);
a processor (computer processor 158; para [0028]); and
memory (volatile memory, non-volatile memory; para [0074]) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
generating a 3D image of the surface by combining the depth data and the 2D image data (Three-dimensional image of the surface of object 136 and may output the image to an output device 160 using scene depth from the imaging. Para [0028]); and
causing the 3D display to output the 3D image of the surface (a computer processor 158 may reconstruct a three-dimensional image of the surface of object 136 and may output the image to an output device 160, e.g., a monitor; Para [0028]).
PNG
media_image1.png
501
838
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Atiya discloses wherein the at least one imager comprises: a light source (light source 202) configured to emit low-coherence light (FIG. 1B);
a beam splitter (Dichroic mirror 348; FIG. 1B) configured to split the low-coherence light into a first beam and a second beam (FIG. 1B), the beam splitter emitting the first beam toward the surface (FIG. 1B);
a reference mirror (scanning mirror 346) configured to emit a reflection of the second beam by reflecting the second beam (FIG. 1B); and
an image sensor array (Imaging camera 132 has a imaging camera sensor 146 that comprises an image sensor comprising an array of pixels, e.g., a CMOS image sensor. Para [0027]) configured to generate the depth data by detecting a coherence image comprising a reflection of the first beam from the surface and the reflection of the second beam (Depth data is obtained from the imaging; para [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Atiya discloses at least one lens (lens 206, 342) configured to refract at least one of the low-coherence light, the first beam, the second beam, the reflection of the first beam, or the reflection of the second beam (FIG. 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Atiya discloses the light source being a first light source, wherein: the image sensor array is further configured to generate the 2D image data by detecting an image comprising a reflection of the low-coherence light from the surface (Imaging camera 132 has a imaging camera sensor 146 that comprises an image sensor comprising an array of pixels, e.g., a CMOS image sensor. Para [0027]; Before using the depth information to obtain a 3D image, the image obtained by the camera is a structured 2D image. Para [0028]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Graves (US 20010040743).
Regarding claim 6, Atiya discloses an input device configured to detect an input signal (Hand input; FIG. 2; Para [0024]) from a user.
Atiya does not expressly disclose an actuator configured to alter a curvature of the reference mirror, the reference mirror being deformable, wherein the operations further comprise causing the actuator to alter the curvature of the reference mirror based on the input signal.
Graves is directed to a method of multimodal scanning (abstract) and teaches an actuator configured to alter a curvature of the reference mirror, the reference mirror being deformable, wherein the operations further comprise causing the actuator to alter the curvature of the reference mirror based on the input signal (If the system is used for data transmission by light waves, the detector D will receive and detect corrected light rays when the deformable mirror 14 is properly deformed to correct for aberrations in the light rays R transmitted to the system illustrated in FIG. 1; Para [0013]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atiya to include deformable mirror in accordance with the teaching of Graves so that correction or compensation of image signal could be included in the imaging (Para [0003] of Graves).
Claim(s) 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Brown (US 20170127043).
Regarding claim 9, Atiya discloses a 3D display (monitor 160).
Atiya does not expressly disclose wherein the 3D display comprises: a screen comprising an array of pixels.
Brown is directed to an apparatus for displaying and/or capturing auto-multiscopic 3D images (FIG. 1; abstract) and teaches an array of lenses (concave lens array (1501); FIG. 15; para [0102]) overlapping a group of pixels in the array of pixels (FIGS. 14, 15), directing light emitted by a first pixel in the group of pixels in a first direction and directing light emitted by a second pixel in the group of pixels in a second direction (Note the light emitted by sub-pixels; FIG. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify display of Atiya to have a display including lenses in accordance with the teaching of Brown so that image collection could be enhanced by way of having lenses as array of pixels in the display.
Regarding claim 10, Atiya as modified teaches wherein a spatial resolution of the depth data is greater at a periphery of a field-of-view of the depth data than a spatial resolution of the depth data at a center of the field-of-view (Brown: FIG. 15; Lens display; Since lenses are provided as pixels to collect signal, lens in periphery would have more signals to accumulate from more spatial data for depth than in the center for 3D image data.), and wherein a spatial resolution of the 2D image data is greater at a center of a field-of-view of the 2D image data than a spatial resolution of the 2D image data at a periphery of the field-of-view (Brown: For 2D image data, the projection of 2D signal is higher at the center than at the periphery.).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Kato (US 20150235373) and further in view of Ushijima (US 20160095504).
Regarding claim 11, Atiya does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user, wherein the operations further comprise: causing the 3D display to visually output a recommendation to increase or decrease the distance.
Kato is directed to three-dimensional display device (abstract) and teaches a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user (Position of the plane of display, depth of the image is determined; FIG. 6A; Para [0105]; outputs information indicating a decided candidate to the depth suitability determination unit 270 and 3D image compositing unit 124. Para [0178]).
Ushijima is directed to stereoscopic endoscope system (abstract) and teaches causing the 3D display to visually output a recommendation to increase or decrease the distance (a message or the like may be displayed indicating that the direction and height of the 3D monitor 5 are to be manually adjusted. Para [0149]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Atiya to include a sensor to detect a distance between the display and a user so that a user could be informed of a position of a 3D display for enhanced visibility.
Further, it would have been obvious to further modify Atiya to include a recommendation to increase or decrease the distance of the display from the user so that a user could view the 3D image more conveniently by having a recommendation from the device to adjust the position of the 3D display.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atiya (US 20230021695) in view of Kato (US 20150235373).
Regarding claim 12, Atiya does not expressly disclose a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user, wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting a viewing distance of the 3D image being visually presented by the 3D display based on the distance between the scope and the user.
Kato is directed to three-dimensional display device (abstract) and a sensor configured to detect a distance between the scope and a user (Position of the plane of display, depth of the image is determined; FIG. 6A; Para [0104], [0105]; Note in FIG. 6A, the depth of the image in 3D is adjusted based on users eye positions.), wherein the operations further comprise: adjusting a viewing distance of the 3D image being visually presented by the 3D display based on the distance between the scope and the user (Adjusts the display region of the additional image according to a suitability; FIG. 6A; para [0105], [0106], [0178]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Atiya so that distance of the display region of the 3D display could be adjusted as needed for a user convenience.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO – 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHANKAR R GHIMIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-0515. The examiner can normally be reached 8 AM - 5 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached on 571-272-4963. 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.
/SHANKAR RAJ GHIMIRE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
01/10/2026