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 .
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s response to the last Office Action, filed on 5/22/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Double patenting rejections are withdrawn in view of the 08/12/2025 Terminal Disclaimer.
Examiner notes that the 11/12/2025 claims failed to provide the proper claim markup for the following claim amendment in the independent claims: “and as the second distance decreases, the first distance increases.” While Examiner did not send out a Notice of Non-Compliant Amendment, Examiner notes that any future amendments without proper markup will receive such a notice. Examiner notes that the most recent claim set on 05/22/2026 maintains this language.
Rejections are added under 35 USC 112(a) due to new matter. New objection to the Specification due to new matter is added in view of amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 5/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Lam reference has replaced the Alasirnio reference in the rejection of the independent claims. See detailed analysis below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-3, 10, 11, 14-15, and 20 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. Claims 2 and 14 require “wherein determining the first distance comprises: superimposing, with the processor, the first image and the second image to produce a superimposed image; determining, with the processor, the first distance in the superimposed image between the position of the projected light in the first image and the position of the projected light in the second image…” With the most recent amendments the independent claims have now been amended to swap the definition of the first distance and the second distance. As such, claims 2 and 14 now incorrectly refer to the “first distance” instead of the second distance in the superimposing step. Examiner recommends amending the independent claims swapping back the definition of the first distance and the second distance. This would be more straightforward than trying to amend the dependent claims.
Claims 3 and 15 likewise incorrectly refer to the first distance instead of the second distance in the computer vision step.
Claim 10 likewise incorrectly refers to the second distance instead of the first distance in the table computing step.
Claims 11 and 20 likewise incorrectly refers to the first distance instead of the second distance.
Specification
The amendment filed 5/22/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
¶ 0025 of the Specification was amended in the 05/22/2026 Specification and now contains new matter. Examiner suggest the following amendment be made to the newly amended language:
[0025] The image sensors simultaneously and iteratively capture images at discrete time intervals. FIG. 3A illustrates an embodiment of the image captured by left image sensor 102 (in FIG. 2). 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. FIG. 3B illustrates an embodiment of the image captured by right image sensor 103 (in FIG. 2). 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. A first distance is defined by the baseplate to the projection surface. As the first distance increases, light points 301 and 303 in each field of view will appear further and further towards
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
This particular amendment is inconsistent with the meaning of the explanation here and has been amended to recite the opposite of what was previously stated. The remainder of the amendment is consistent with the changes Examiner suggested previously.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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) 1-7, 9, 10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US PGPub 2011/0071675) in view of Lam (US PGPub 2015/0269737).
Regarding claim 1, Wells discloses a method for remotely estimating distance, comprising: (Wells teaches a robotic system which uses stereo camera and a laser light projector to remotely determine a three-dimensional environment, abstract. ¶ 0061 teach that the system detects the 3D location of objects with respect to the robot’s head.)
projecting, with a laser light emitter of a distance estimation device, a light onto surfaces opposite the laser light emitter, thereby illuminating the surfaces; (¶ 0057 and 0068 teach projecting structured laser light onto objects from the auxiliary lighting device 44 which contains laser projectors 42.)
capturing, with each of a first image sensor and a second image sensor of the distance estimation device, images of the illuminated surfaces simultaneously at discrete time intervals, each captured image including the projected light; (¶ 0057, 0058 and 0068 teach that left and right cameras 34 capture the illuminated surface. Also see Fig. 2. The robotic device captures the stereo images iteratively as it interacts with the environment. ¶ 0040 teaches the synchronization of the iterative frames within discrete time intervals. Also see ¶ 0071 and 0072.)
determining, with a processor, a first distance between the distance estimation device and the surfaces on which the light is projected at a first time step; and (¶ 0079 teaches that distance is found using the stereo system and ¶ 0061 describes that a 3D location of the environment is determined.)
determining, with a processor, a second 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 (¶ 0058 teaches stereo matching to find the distance match between a field of view of one camera to the other camera.)
wherein: the first image and the second image are captured at the first time step; (As above, ¶ 0040 teaches the synchronization of the iterative frames within discrete time intervals. Also see ¶ 0071 and 0072.)
In the field of computer vision stereo matching Lam teaches what Wells does not expressly disclose, namely, as the second distance decreases, the first distance increases. (Lam teaches a stereo imaging technique in which images are captured by two cameras (¶ 0033) and disparity/second distance of matching points between the left and right images is calculated in a stereo matching process. Depth/first distance of the stereo camera to the projecting surface is then computed. ¶ 0035 “Disparity can be measured as the number of pixels along this horizontal line that the object appears to move between the left and right views. Disparity is inversely proportional to the depth. Objects that are closer to the cameras appear to move greater distances than background objects. Once the disparity is generated from the stereo images, the depth Z can be calculated from the disparity X by triangulation”.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Wells’ stereo matching system with Lam’s stereo matching system. Wells teaches active stereo matching, a technique for improving stereo matching using projected light. Lam teaches the full geometric detail of how stereo matching works. The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Lam’s technique here, in order to properly perform the well-known technique of stereo matching. This cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 2, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first distance comprises: superimposing, with the processor, the first image and the second image to produce a superimposed image; (See Lam ¶ 0036)
determining, with the processor, the first distance in the superimposed image between the position of the projected light in the first image and the position of the projected light in the second image, the first image and the second image forming the superimposed image. (See Lam ¶ 0035-0036)
Regarding claim 3, the above combination discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the processor uses computer vision technology to extract the first distance. (See Lam ¶ 0036 and Wells ¶ 0058.)
Regarding claim 4, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first image and the second image at least partially overlap. (See Lam ¶ 0036 and Wells ¶ 0058.)
Regarding claim 5, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first image sensor and the second image sensor are symmetrically disposed on either side of the laser light emitter. (See Wells Fig. 2 which shows the two image sensors 34 symmetrically disposed on either side of the laser light emitter 44. Also see frontal view at Fig. 5.)
Regarding claim 6, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein each of the first image sensor and the second image sensor are positioned at an angle such that a field of view of the first image sensor and the second image sensor at least partially overlap. (Wells ¶ 0057, 0058 and 0068 teach that left and right cameras 34 are positioned at an angle to each capture the illuminated surface. The laser lines are captured in each image and then used to apply binocular calibration. Also see Fig. 2 and ¶ 0034 which show the cameras are angled to have the same focal point 40.)
Regarding claim 7, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the distance estimation device is disposed on a robotic device for use in avoiding obstacles during navigation. (See Wells ¶ 0082 and 0083 which teach robotic obstacle avoidance.)
Regarding claim 9, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the surfaces on which the light is projected are within a predetermined range of distance from the laser light emitter. (Wells ¶ 0055 and 0056 teach range cueing from the infrared sensor which is a process for initiating the active stereo sensing with the laser light emitter based on surfaces being within a predetermined distance range.)
Regarding claim 10, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the second distance is determined based on a preconfigured table relating the first distance with the second distance. (Lam ¶ 0055)
Regarding claim 12, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the laser light emitter emits a light point or a light line. (Wells ¶ 0057 and 0068, as above.)
Claims 13-19 are the non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims 1-12. Wells ¶ 0025 teaches a computer readable medium. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
Claim(s) 8, 11 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US PGPub 2011/0071675) in view of Lam (US PGPub 2015/0269737) and Alasirnio (US PGPub 2017/0135617)
Regarding claim 8, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method of claim 1, but not the remaining limitations.
In the field of stereo matching Alasirnio teaches that at least a portion of the distance estimation device is positioned behind a band-pass filter to limit an amount of light. (Alasirnio ¶ 0034, “The band-pass filter 116 can be designed to filter substantially all IR light except for wavelength(s) of light emitted by the light projector 114 and can be implemented, for example, as a dielectric-type band-pass filter.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined Wells’ stereo matching system with Alasirnio’s stereo matching system. Wells teaches active stereo matching, a technique for improving stereo matching using projected light. Alasirnio teaches active stereo matching with a laser light emitter and teaches using a band-pass filter to improve the image signal. The combination constitutes the repeatable and predictable result of simply applying Alasirnio’s technique here, in order to effectively perform the well-known technique of active stereo matching. This cannot be considered a non-obvious improvement over the prior art. Using known engineering design, no “fundamental” operating principle of the teachings are changed; they continue to perform the same functions as originally taught prior to being combined.
Regarding claim 11, the above combination discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the first distance comprises: determining, with the processor, a third distance between the projected light in the first image and a common point the first image; determining, with the processor, a fourth distance between the projected light in the second image and the common point the second image; and determining, with the processor, the first distance as a difference between the third distance and the fourth distance. (Alasirnio teaches measuring the distance between the projected light in images captured by the two sensors and a common point in the images. See ¶ 0039 and 0046 which teaches measuring the two distances to a common point.)
Claim 20 is the non-transitory machine-readable medium claims corresponding to the method claims 11. Wells ¶ 0025 teaches a computer readable medium. Remaining limitations are rejected similarly. See detailed analysis above.
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
Prosecution Insights