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
Applicant's amendment filed on March 16, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 – 13 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. Claims 1 – 13 are still pending in this application, with claims 1 and 13 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 16, 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding rejection - 35 USC § 101
The Applicant’s argument is persuasive. The §101 rejection is lifted.
Regarding rejection - 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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) 1 – 6, 9 – 10 and 12 – 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milani et al. (“Correction and interpolation of depth maps from structured light infrared sensors”, Signal Processing: Image Communication 41 (2016) 28–39), hereinafter referred as Milani, in view of Radmer et al. (“Incident Light Related Distance Error Study and Calibration of the PMD-Range Imaging Camera”, 2008 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Workshops), hereinafter referred as Radmer.
Regarding claim 1, Milani discloses an imaging device (Fig. 1) comprising:
a depth image sensing device configured to sense structured light to generate pixel data (Fig. 1, Depth image CMOS); and
an image signal processor (Fig. 1, Processing unit) configured to:
generate target depth data of a target pixel using the pixel data (section 4 and 4.1, generate depth data Din(x,y));
perform interpolation (section 4.5, Depth interpolation) using calibration information of at least one grid pixel adjacent to the target pixel (section 4.2 – 4.4, considered as calibration for 3x3 grid pixel adjacent to the target pixel; section 4.3 also talked about calibration) to generate interpolation calibration information for the target pixel (section 4.5, Depth interpolation); and
generate corrected depth data by correcting target depth data of the target pixel based on the interpolation calibration information (section 4.5, The final estimated depth sample is then computed as equation (14)).
However, Milani fails to explicitly disclose wherein the depth image sensing device configured to sense incident light.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Radmer discloses incident light related distance error study and calibration of the PMD-Range imaging camera (abstract). In addition, Radmer discloses a depth image sensing device configured to sense incident light (pages 2 – 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Milani, and the depth image sensing device configured to sense incident light. The motivation for doing this is that the Application of Milani can be broadened so that different situations can be handled.
Regarding claim 2 (depends on claim 1), Milani discloses the device wherein the at least one grid pixel includes: a pixel corresponding to each vertex of a grid to which the target pixel belongs (section 4.2, 3x3 grid pixel adjacent to the target pixel).
Regarding claim 3 (depends on claim 2), Milani discloses the device wherein: the interpolation calibration information corresponds to a result of performing interpolation on the calibration information of the at least one grid pixel based on a distance between the target pixel and each of the grid pixels (section 4.5, distance d).
Regarding claim 4 (depends on claim 1), Milani discloses the device wherein: the calibration information includes a slope and an intercept that indicate a relationship between depth data and a test distance in the grid pixel (section 4.3, depth, distance, derivative is slope).
Regarding claim 5 (depends on claim 1), Milani discloses the device wherein the image signal processor is configured to generate, when the target pixel belongs to a uniform region, the corrected depth data by correcting the target depth data based on reference calibration information (section 5, reference P0).
Regarding claim 6 (depends on claim 5), Milani discloses the device wherein: the reference calibration information refers to calibration information of a central pixel (section 4.5, central pixel x,y with regards to upper, lower, left, and right neighboring pixels).
Regarding claim 9 (depends on claim 1), Milani discloses the device wherein the image signal processor is configured to: calculate a test distance corresponding to the target depth data using the interpolation calibration information (section 4.5, distance d); and calculate the corrected depth data corresponding to the calculated test distance using the reference calibration information (section 4.5, Depth interpolation).
Regarding claim 10 (depends on claim 1), Milani discloses the device wherein the image signal processor is configured to store calibration information of a plurality of grid pixels including the at least one grid pixel (page 38, 1st para., 12 GB RAM, apparently RAM stores all grid pixel information).
Regarding claim 12 (depends on claim 1), Radmer discloses the device wherein: the target depth data refers to a disparity, a time difference between an irradiation time point of pulse light and an incidence time point of reflected pulse light, or a phase difference between modulated light and reflected light (section 2, ToF).
Regarding claim 13, Milani discloses an imaging device (Fig. 1):
a depth image sensing device configured to sense structured light to generate pixel data (Fig. 1, Depth image CMOS); and
an image signal processor (Fig. 1, Processing unit) configured to:
store (page 38, 1st para., 12 GB RAM, apparently RAM stores all grid pixel information) calibration information of a plurality of grid pixels (section 4.2 – 4.4, considered as calibration for 3x3 grid pixel adjacent to the target pixel; section 4.3 also talked about calibration) and reference calibration information (section 5, reference P0); and
correct the target depth data of the target pixel according to where the target pixel is located based on either interpolation calibration information (section 4.5) or the reference calibration information (section 5); and
generate corrected depth data based on the corrected target depth data (section 4.5, The final estimated depth sample is then computed as equation (14)),
wherein the interpolation calibration information for the target pixel is generated by performing interpolation (section 4.5, Depth interpolation) using calibration information of the plurality of grid pixels adjacent to the target pixel (section 4.2 – 4.4, considered as calibration for 3x3 grid pixel adjacent to the target pixel; section 4.3 also talked about calibration).
However, Milani fails to explicitly disclose wherein the depth image sensing device configured to sense incident light.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Radmer discloses incident light related distance error study and calibration of the PMD-Range imaging camera (abstract). In addition, Radmer discloses a depth image sensing device configured to sense incident light (pages 2 – 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Milani, and the depth image sensing device configured to sense incident light. The motivation for doing this is that the Application of Milani can be broadened so that different situations can be handled.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milani in view of Radmer and Tsutsui (US Patent Application Publication 2022/0377194).
Regarding claim 7 (depends on claim 5), Milani fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein: the reference calibration information refers to average calibration information of grid pixels belonging to the uniform region.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Tsutsui discloses a method for calibration ([0066]). In addition, Tsutsui discloses the method wherein average calibration information of grid pixels belonging to the region ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Milani, and the reference calibration information refers to average calibration information of grid pixels belonging to the uniform region. The motivation for doing this is to calibration information of grid pixels can be more uniform to the region.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milani in view of Radmer and Renouard et al. (US Patent 5,862,245), hereinafter referred as Renouard.
Regarding claim 8 (depends on claim 5), Milani fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein: the uniform region is formed in a circular shape having a predetermined radius.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Renouard discloses a method for image processing (abstract). In addition, Renouard discloses the method wherein the uniform region is formed in a circular shape having a predetermined radius (col. 4, lines 50 - 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Milani, and the uniform region is formed in a circular shape having a predetermined radius. The motivation for doing this is that the analysis windows can be processed properly.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Milani in view of Radmer and Yun et al. (Korean Patent Application Publication KR 2021-0102026), hereinafter referred as Yun.
Regarding claim 11 (depends on claim 10), Milani fails to explicitly disclose the device wherein: among the plurality of grid pixels, grid pixels adjacent to each other in a row direction or a column direction are spaced apart from each other by a distance between pixels corresponding to a predetermined offset.
However, in a similar field of endeavor Yun discloses a image sensor (abstract). In addition, Yun discloses the sensor wherein the among the plurality of grid pixels, grid pixels adjacent to each other in a row direction or a column direction are spaced apart from each other by a distance between pixels corresponding to a predetermined offset (page 3, last para.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Milani, and grid pixels adjacent to each other in a row direction or a column direction are spaced apart from each other by a distance between pixels corresponding to a predetermined offset. The motivation for doing this is that the signal will not be too dense to mix with each other so that the quality can be ensured.
Conclusion
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 QIAN YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7239. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 8am-6pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Bee can be reached on 571-270-5183. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QIAN YANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2677
Prosecution Insights