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 .
Examiner’s Note
In the prior claim set filed 12/09/2024 Applicant amended the claims as follows, “as the second distance decreases the first increases” in order to resolve the outstanding the 112(a) issue. In the most recent claim set filed 08/12/2025, the claims have been reverted back by amending as follows, “as the second distance decreases the first decreases”. As such the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) is again included here. Examiner notes that this claim scope has prevented the prior art from reading on the claims since an art rejection cannot be reasonably made with the claims in their current form. See details of the rejection under 35 USC 112(a) below.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action, filed on 08/12/2025 has been entered and made of record.
Rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been added and rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Double patenting rejections have been withdrawn in view of the 08/12/2025 Terminal Disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 08/12/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The independent claims’ scope has changed to claim the opposite relationship between the first and second distances as what was previously claimed. The claims now require that ‘as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases.’ Due to the major change in claim requirements, previous rejections under 35 USC 103 have been withdrawn and rejections under 35 USC 112(a) have been added in view of amendments. As noted above, the previous claim set contained the identical claim scope currently presented. No arguments have been made regarding the rejections under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1-20 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) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The independent claims describe a stereo imaging system with a laser light emitter to illuminate a surface. The illuminated surface is imaged with first and second image sensors. The claims then require determining “a first distance between a position of the projected light in a first image captured with the first image sensor and a position of the projected light in a second image captured with the second image sensor; and determining, with the processor, a second distance between the distance estimation device and the surfaces on which the light is projected at a first time step; wherein: the first image and the second image are captured at the first time step; and as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases.”
The setup claimed here and described in the specification is a simple traditional stereo triangulation in which depth to an imaged surface (claimed second distance) is derived from image disparity between left and right cameras (claimed first distance).
However, Examiner notes that the claims appear to contain an error in the claim language regarding the relationship between the first and second distance. Contrary to the claims, given the physical setup described in the specification and depicted in Fig. 2, the relationship of the two distances is an inverse relationship, that is, when the distance to the imaged surface (second distance) decreases, the disparity distance (first distance) increases.
First, Examiner will point to the specification itself to show this inconsistency. ¶ 0024 describes Fig. 2 which is an illustration of a standard stereo triangulation depth imaging system. A laser light is projected upon surface 204 while cameras 102 and 103, positioned with a certain distance from one another, image the laser light point at different relative positions in their image frame. This difference in the position of the imaged laser point in each cameras’ frame is used to compute the distance of the camera system to the surface 204. ¶ 0025 continues with this explanation and refers to a depiction of the imaged laser light point shown in Figs. 3A and 3B:
“…Rectangle 300 represents the field of view of image sensor 102. Point 301 represents the light point projected by laser beam emitter 104 as viewed by image sensor 102. Referring to FIG. 3B, an embodiment of the image captured by right image sensor 103 (in FIG. 2) is illustrated. Rectangle 302 represents the field of view of image sensor 103. Point 303 represents the light point projected by laser beam emitter 104 as viewed by image sensor 102. As the distance of the baseplate to projection surfaces increases, light points 301 and 303 in each field of view will appear further and further toward the outer limits of each field of view, shown respectively in FIG. 2 as dashed lines 205 and 206. Thus, when two images captured at the same time are overlaid, the distance between the two points will increase as distance to the projection surface increases.”
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the last two sentences, which are separately underlined above, contradict each other. In particular, rectangle 300 in Fig. 3A, which is a field of view of image sensor 102 (the left image sensor in Fig. 2), is bordered on its left by outer limit line 205 depicted in Fig. 2 (not its right). Thus, as per the first underlined sentence above, as the distance to the surface increases the laser point 201 in Fig. 3A would move toward the outer limit line 205 which is toward the left, bringing the laser point in 3A closer to the center of the image. The situation for rectangle 302 in Fig. 3B, which depicts the image of the right image sensor 103, is the symmetrical image but otherwise the same situation. The laser point 303 will move to the right as the distance to the surface increases, bringing the point closer to the center of the image.
This description at this first underlined sentence is completely consistent with the clear physical reality that one can plainly see looking at the diagram in Fig. 2. If the surface 204 was closer to the imaging system (but still touching the striped image area 202) it is self-evident that the laser point from the laser line 200 would be closer to the inner edge of the images of cameras 102 and 103. As the surface 204 moves further away, the laser line point in each of the images would move away from the inner edge of the images and towards the center of each of the images. If the laser line point images are superimposed on one another, closer distances to the surface would of course result in further distances between the laser line points.
This first underlined sentence and the physical reality easy to see in Fig. 2 contradicts the second underlined sentence, with the language “the distance between the two points will increase as distance to the projection surface increases.” As noted above, the claims require similar language, “as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases.” The language required in the claims is inconsistent with and contradictory of the explanation of the invention at ¶ 0024-0025 and Fig. 2.
Examiner notes that the well-known reference text Jahne’s “Digital Image Processing” describes this standard stereo triangulation at pg. 221, section 8.2 Depth from Triangulation, subsection 8.2.1 Stereoscopy, “An object will be projected onto different positions of the image plane because it is viewed from slightly different angles [by the left and right camera]. The difference in the position is denoted as the disparity or parallax, p . . . The parallax is inversely proportional to the distance X3 of the object.” Equation 8.3 derives this inverse relationship as
p
=
b
d
'
X
3
. As mentioned, p is the disparity and X3 is the distance to the object (d’ and b are just physical parameters of the stereo camera setup).
Alasirnio (US PGPub 2017/0135617) is another reference which covers an effectively identical technique of performing stereo matching with a laser light emitter to determine depth. The reference teaches a stereo camera setup which performs detection of the binocular disparity in the two cameras, a technique known as stereo matching. ¶ 0049 shows the same relationship as Jahne above and shows the inverse relationship between the two distances.
Due to the above-described inconsistency within the specification and with the claims pertaining to the stereo triangulation disclosure, Examiner finds that the disclosure is not adequate to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. In particular, the claimed invention requires, “as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases.” Nowhere does the disclosure explain how this relationship would exist or how it would be used to perform the claimed function of estimating distance. The only clear explanation in the specification at ¶ 0025 describes the opposite relationship between the two distances and no explanation is given to reconcile this. As such, the disclosure has not clearly conveyed that the Applicant has invented the required claimed subject matter. In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977).
To satisfy the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe the claimed invention in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Moba, B.V. v. Diamond Automation, Inc., 325 F.3d 1306, 1319, 66 USPQ2d 1429, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 2003); MPEP 2163 (I)(A) states that “issues of adequate written description may arise even for original claims, for example, when an aspect of the claimed invention has not been described with sufficient particularity such that one skilled in the art would recognize that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional or known in the art.”
Claims 1-20 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Examiner notes that the language above, “as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases.” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, is separate and distinct from the written description requirement. Vas-Cath,Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1116-17 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
Without repeating the entire analysis and claim construction above, Examiner notes that from the physical setup described in the specification and depicted in Fig. 2 the relationship of the two distances is an inverse relationship. That is, when the distance to the imaged surface (second distance) decreases, the disparity distance (first distance) increases. However, the independent claims require, “as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases.” As Examiner mentioned in detail above, there is a reason to doubt the objective truth of the statements of the claim requirements, as per MPEP 2164.04. In particular Examiner pointed to the inconsistency between sections of the specification to one another and to the claim requirements. Examiner also pointed to inconsistency between the claim requirements and the physical diagram presented by Applicant in Figs. 2, 3A and 3B. Lastly, Examiner pointed to inconsistency between the claim requirements and multiple texts from the art which describe the opposite of what the claims require. As such, the only conclusion is that language, “as the second distance decreases, the first distance decreases” was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to make and/or use the invention. Nowhere does the disclosure explain how this relationship would exist or how it would be used to perform the claimed function. The only clear explanation in the specification at ¶ 0025 describes the opposite relationship between the two distances and no explanation is given to reconcile this.
Examiner notes that as per In re Wands, 858 F.2d at 737, 8 USPQ2d at 1404. the determination that “undue experimentation” would have been needed to make and use the claimed invention is not a single, simple factual determination. Rather, it is a conclusion reached by weighing the following noted factual considerations. (A) The breadth of the claims; (B) The nature of the invention; (C) The state of the prior art; (D) The level of one of ordinary skill; (E) The level of predictability in the art; (F) The amount of direction provided by the inventor; (G) The existence of working examples; (H) The quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. As per MPEP 2164.04 it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the enablement rejection. Here in particular, the nature of the claimed invention was found to be opposite to that most clearly described from the specification (factor B). The state of the art was carefully examined, as evidenced by citation of multiple references contradicting the claim requirements (factor C), and level of one of ordinary skill and predictability of the art was noted as someone familiar with common similar stereo triangulation references (factors D and E). The quantity of experimentation (factor H) was assessed and noted that experimentation would be very high as the claim requirement describes the opposite of the specification description.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Raphael Schwartz whose telephone number is (571)270-3822. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am-5pm CT.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached on (571) 272-8243. 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.
/RAPHAEL SCHWARTZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2671