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
Claims 1 and 3-6 are currently pending.
Applicant’s amendment filed 21 August 2026 overcomes the prior rejection(s). The pending claims have been considered under the remaining statutory requirements. A prior art search was conducted for the claims as presently pending. No rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103 is made on the present record. This statement is not an indication that claims 1 and 3-6 contain allowable subject matter. Claims 1 and 3-6 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 4, “in response to” should read --wherein in response to--.
Claim 5 is objected to by virtue of dependency.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1 and 3-6 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.
Claims 1 and 4 introduce “at least one senor function” but subsequently refer to “the function.” Where multiple sensor functions are adjusted, it is unclear whether “the function” refers to one sensor function, a subset of sensor functions, or all sensor functions.
Claim 3 repeats the ambiguity in “adjust the function again.”
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 4.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites a confidence estimator configured to “estimate a confidence of the sensing values.” The specification as originally filed fails to describe the claimed confidence estimator in sufficient detail to reasonably conclude applicant had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the specification in ¶¶ 5, 24, and 29 simply declare that confidence is estimated without identifying which characteristics of the sensing values are evaluated or what operation the estimator performs to produce the confidence estimate. Neither the “ToF Data Interpolation” and “Stereo Algorithm” blocks nor the “ToF,” “Joint,” and “Stereo” labels in Fig. 1 detail any processing steps performed by the confidence estimator. Fig. 5, step S20, merely repeats the desired result. The specification in ¶¶ 34, 36, and 38 describe responses to low confidence but provide no guidance by which the confidence estimator determines the claimed confidence. There is a complete absence of disclosure regarding any meaningful guidance, algorithms, operational steps, or computational methods used to estimate the claimed “confidence.” “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” See MPEP 2161.01(I). Accordingly, the written description is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 1 further recites a fusion processor configured to fuse the sensing values “based on the adjustment of the at least one sensor function by the function adjuster.” The specification as originally filed fails to describe the claimed fusion processor in sufficient detail to reasonably conclude applicant had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the specification in ¶¶ 31 and 49 simply declare fusion based on the function adjustment, remaining silent towards any disclosure for how the function adjustment is particularly employed in the fusion operation, or the steps performed by the fusion processor to fuse the sensing values. The “ToF-Stereo Fusion” block in Fig. 1 and step S40 in Fig. 5 provide no details of a combining procedure, and their placement after function adjustment does not offer any meaningful guidance. “It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement.” See MPEP 2161.01(I). Accordingly, the written description is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that the applicant had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was filed.
Claim 4 is directed to a three-dimensional spatial scanning method corresponding to the three-dimensional spatial scanning system of claim 1. Therefore, claim 4 is similarly analyzed and rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected as being dependent on and failing to cure the deficiencies of rejected claim 4.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include: Huang (US 20200150695 A1) which discloses ToF and RGB sensing, confidence based sensor control, illumination adjustment, and depth fusion to improve accuracy of object depth measurements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is 571-272-1078. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, YUQING XIAO can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.
/ZHENGQING QI/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights