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 .
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pau (US 20180100731).
Regarding claim 1, Pau teaches:
A structured light sensing module (#100 of Fig. 1, depth imager), comprising:
a structured light source (#102 of Fig. 1, structured illuminator), configured to emit structured light [52] having a polarization ([55]: the structured light pattern can be a pattern of polarization states) toward a sensing target (#104 of Fig. 1, object);
a sensing device (#101 of Fig. 1, camera), configured to receive the structured light reflected from the sensing target (#101 of Fig. 1, camera, see light rays shown in Fig. 1), and having a plurality of sensing units (#400 of Fig. 4A, focal plane array, [53]: “camera 101 comprises a focusing lens or lens group, a focal plane imaging sensor array“); and
a plurality of polarizing units (Fig. 4C, [65]) disposed on a side of a light-receiving surface of the sensing device, and respectively overlapping the plurality of sensing units (#400 of Fig. 4A, "Each block or cluster of four subpixels in 400 is covered by a set of four optical filters."), wherein each polarizing unit includes at least four polarizing patterns, each of the at least four polarizing patterns has an absorption axis, and axial directions of the absorption axes of the at least four polarizing patterns are different from each other ("FIG. 4C depicts another exemplary set of four optical filters 420, which can be a linear polarizer at 0° 421, a linear polarizer at 135° 422, a linear polarizer at 90°423, and a linear polarizer at 45°", the block or cluster is considered to be the polarizing unit).
Regarding claim 2, Pau teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 1, wherein the at least four polarizing patterns includes a first polarizing pattern, a second polarizing pattern, a third polarizing pattern and a fourth polarizing pattern ("FIG. 4C depicts another exemplary set of four optical filters 420, which can be a linear polarizer at 0° 421, a linear polarizer at 135° 422, a linear polarizer at 90°423, and a linear polarizer at 45°"), the absorption axis of the first polarizing pattern is perpendicular to the absorption axis of the second polarizing pattern (Fig. 4C, the first polarizing pattern being at 0 degrees, and the second being at 90 degrees), and the absorption axis of the third polarizing pattern is perpendicular to the absorption axis of the fourth polarizing pattern (Fig. 4C the third polarizing pattern being at 45 degrees, and the fourth being at 135 degrees).
Regarding claim 3, Pau teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 2, wherein an included angle between an axial direction of the absorption axis of the first polarizing pattern and an axial direction of the absorption axis of the third polarizing pattern is 45 degrees (Fig. 4C, the angle between the first pattern (0 degrees) and the third pattern (45 degrees), is 45 degrees))
Regarding claim 4, Pau teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 2, wherein the structured light reflected from the sensing target (Fig. 1 shows structured light reflecting off object #104 towards camera #101 which contains focal plane array #400) includes a first portion passing through the first polarizing pattern, a second portion passing through the second polarizing pattern, a third portion passing through the third polarizing pattern and a fourth portion passing through the fourth polarizing pattern ([65], the focal plane array is covered by polarizing filters shown in Fig. 4C, so light passing reaching the camera #101 shown in Fig. 1 is filtered by filters shown in Fig. 4C before reaching focal plane array #400), and each of the sensing units includes a first sensing pixel, a second sensing pixel, a third sensing pixel and a fourth sensing pixel ("Each block or cluster of four subpixels in 400 is covered by a set of four optical filters") configured to respectively receive the first portion, the second portion, the third portion and the fourth portion of the structured light ([61]: the polarization filters selectively transmit light, the light would be transmitted through the polarization filters to the focal plane array so that the array can detect light [58])
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) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau in view of Kang et al. (Multiple Integration Method…, 2005)
Regarding claim 5, Pau teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 4, the sensing device is also configured to generate image data (#1120 of Fig. 11, process block, "measure reflected light", [76]) according to sensing results of the first sensing pixel, the second sensing pixel, the third sensing pixel and the fourth sensing pixel of each sensing unit ([60]: a linear polarization camera acquires an image that describes the linear polarization states of a scene, the four pixels would be the pixels covered by the filter shown in Fig. 4C, which is an example of a linear polarization camera, the sensing pixels of each sensing unit would be the four pixels covered respectively by the group described in claim 2, the measurement of reflected light ).
Pau does not teach:
The sensing device is also configured to generate image data according to a plurality of sensing results of the pixels
However, Kang teaches:
Reading pixel signals multiple times in one frame (Fig. 1(b) shows multiple integration and read cycles in a single frame)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau to use a plurality of each sensors results similar to Kang with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the SNR of the system (Kang: “In comparison with a general case, the increased storage capacity provides a greatly improved SNR by a factor of approximately 3.”)
Regarding claim 6, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 5, further comprising: a processing unit (#1410 of Fig. 14, processing unit), electrically coupled to the sensing device (#1425 of Fig. 14, measurement acquisition subsystem), and configured to generate a depth information of the sensing target according to the image data [72, 76].
Claim(s) 7, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau in view of Kang and further in view of Mordechai et al. (US 20210174528).
Regarding claim 7, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 6 wherein the processing unit includes:
a polarization analysis module (#1130 of Fig. 11, process block, calculate optical parameters, [76])
Pau does not teach:
a polarization analysis module, configured to calculate light intensity S received by each of the sensing units according to light intensity I1 received by the first sensing pixel, light intensity I2 received by the second sensing pixel, light intensity I3 received by the third sensing pixel and light intensity I4 received by the fourth sensing pixel, and generate a modified image data
However, Mordechai teaches:
a polarization analysis module, configured to calculate light intensity S received by each of the sensing units ([39-40], light intensity is calculated by Stokes parameter S0) according to light intensity I1 received by the first sensing pixel, light intensity I2 received by the second sensing pixel, light intensity I3 received by the third sensing pixel and light intensity I4 received by the fourth sensing pixel, and generate a modified image data ([39-40], the modified image data has Degree of Linear polarization (DOLP) and Angle of Linear Polarization (AOLP) as channels which are calculated using the 0, 45, 90, and 135 polarized intensity values)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau to use Stokes parameter, DoLP, and AoLP formulas in a polarization analysis module similar to Mordechai with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for the calculation of optical parameters. Pau opens the door for optical parameter calculation (Pau: [73]), but does not specify how to calculate them. Mordechai merely fills in the gaps.
Regarding claim 10, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 7, wherein the processing unit further includes: a depth decoder (#1140 of Fig. 11, process block, calculate geometric parameters, [76]), configured to generate a depth image according to the modified image data [72-74].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau in view of Kang and Mordechai as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Wikipedia (Stokes parameters, 2019).
Regarding claim 8, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 7
Pau does not teach:
wherein the light intensity S received by each of the sensing units satisfies the following equation:
S
=
S
1
2
+
S
2
2
wherein S1 = I1 – I2 and S2 = I3-I4
However, Wikipedia teaches:
Linear polarized light intensity can be expressed as
L
=
Q
2
+
V
2
(Section titled: “Properties”) where Q = S1 and V = S2 (Section titled: “Stokes vectors”)
Additionally, Mordechai teaches:
DoLP can be calculated as
D
O
L
P
=
2
S
1
2
+
S
2
2
/
S
0
[40]
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau to calculate the linear polarized light intensity similar to Wikipedia with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for Pau to calculate the DOLP. Pau opens the door for calculating the DOLP (Pau: [73]), but does not specify how to calculate it. Mordechai and Wikipedia merely fills in the gaps.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau in view of Kang and Mordechai as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sato et al. (US 20100283883).
Regarding claim 9, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 7,
Pau does not teach:
wherein the light intensity S received by each of the sensing units satisfies the following equation: S=Imax-Imin, wherein Imax is maximum light intensity of I1, I2, I3 and I4, and Imin is minimum light intensity of I1, I2, I3 and I4.
However, Sato teaches:
Calculating degree of linear polarization using
I
m
a
x
-
I
m
i
n
I
m
a
x
+
I
m
i
n
([159], a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the numerator is the linear polarization intensity, as the degree of linear polarization is the ratio of linear polarization intensity to total intensity) wherein Imax is maximum light intensity of I1, I2, I3 and I4, and Imin is minimum light intensity of I1, I2, I3 and I4 [157].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau to calculate the linear polarized light intensity similar to Sato with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of allowing for Pau to calculate the DOLP. Pau opens the door for calculating the DOLP (Pau: [73]), but does not specify how to calculate it. Sato merely fills in the gaps.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau in view of Kang and Mordechai as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ge et al. (US 20170310946).
Regarding claim 11, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 10,
Pau does not teach:
wherein the processing unit further includes: a pre-processing module, configured to perform image processing on the modified image data before the modified image data is transmitted to the depth decoder.
However, Ge teaches:
wherein the processing unit further includes: a pre-processing module (Fig. 2, [27]) configured to perform image processing on the modified image data before the modified image data is transmitted to the depth decoder (Fig. 1 shows that the pre-processing takes place before the depth computation).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau to use a pre-processing unit similar to Ge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of facilitating depth perception by reducing noise and improving clarity (Ge: [27])
Regarding claim 12, Pau, as modified above, teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 10,
Pau does not teach:
wherein the processing unit further includes: a post-processing module, configured to perform image processing on the depth image from the depth decoder and output a depth information.
However, Ge teaches:
wherein the processing unit further includes: a post-processing module (shown in Fig. 1, depth post-processing), configured to perform image processing on the depth image from the depth decoder and output a depth information ([30], Fig. 1 shows that the depth post-processing module receives depth information and outputs depth information)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau with a post-processing unit similar to Ge with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of reducing noise from the depth map.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pau in view of Kang and further in view of Jin et al. (US 20200103511).
Regarding claim 13, Pau teaches:
The structured light sensing module according to claim 1,
Pau does not teach:
further comprising: a microlens array, disposed on the side of the light-receiving surface of the sensing device, wherein the polarizing units are located between the microlens array and the sensing device.
However, Jin teaches:
further comprising: a microlens array (#130 of Fig. 12B, microlens, a person having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the microlenses are disposed on each pixel of an array of pixels, thus forming a microlens array, “The polarizer 112 may be arranged between the substrate 101 and every microlens 130 of every depth pixel 120“), disposed on the side of the light-receiving surface of the sensing device [115], wherein the polarizing units are located between the microlens array and the sensing device (“The polarizer 112 may be arranged between the substrate 101 and every microlens 130 of every depth pixel 120“).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the depth imager of Pau to use a microlens on every pixel similar to Jin with a reasonable expectation of success. This would have the predictable result of increasing the efficiency of the imager by directing all incident light onto the photodiode.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVIRAJ D SINGH whose telephone number is (571)272-9128. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-5:30pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at (571) 272-6970. 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.
/A.D.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/ISAM A ALSOMIRI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights