CTNF 18/464,057 CTNF 81432 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) below is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Gupte (20220245832) . Referring to claims 1 and 25, Gupte shows an apparatus comprising: a projector configured to project a pattern into a scene for feature correlation by an imaging device that captures images of the pattern as projected into the scene (see paragraph 75 “a depth sensor can take the form of a light source that can project a structured or textured light pattern”); wherein the apparatus is separate from the imaging device (see paragraph 75 note the depth sensors that may be separate from the image sensor). Referring to claim 2, Gupte shows the imaging device is configured to determine distances between the imaging device and points in the scene based on the images of the pattern as projected into the scene (see paragraph 75 note the projected structured or textured light pattern for determining distance). Referring to claim 3, Gupte shows the imaging device is configured to determine distances between the imaging device and the points in the scene whether the projector projects the pattern or not (see paragraph 75 also see the passive stereo camera as shown in figure 7a and 7b). Referring to claim 4, Gupte shows the imaging device is configured to determine distances between the imaging device and the points in the scene without a priori information regarding the pattern (see paragraph 75 note the depth detection based on the stereo sensors). Referring to claim 5, Gupte shows the imaging device comprises a passive stereo-vision system configured to correlate features of the pattern in stereoscopically-paired images of the scene to determine distances between the passive stereo-vision system and points in the scene (see the stereo cameras as shown in figure 7a and 7b also see paragraph 128-129). Referring to claim 6, Gupte shows the imaging device is configured to determine a pose of the imaging device relative to the scene based on the images of the pattern as projected into the scene (see paragraph 78). Referring to claim 7, Gupte shows the imaging device is configured to determine the pose of the imaging device whether the projector projects the pattern or not (see paragraph 78 note the 6DOF pose detection does not require the distance detection of the projector). Referring to claim 8, Gupte shows the imaging device is configured to determine the pose of the imaging device without a priori information regarding the pattern (note paragraph 78 the 6DOF pose detection does not require the distance detection of the projector). Referring to claim 9, Gupte shows the imaging device comprises a six-degree-of-freedom (6DoF) system configured to correlate features of the pattern in sequential images of the scene to determine a pose of the 6DoF system relative to the scene (see paragraph 78). Referring to claim 10, Gupte shows the projector is configured to project the pattern into the scene without receiving a communication from the imaging device (see the separate distance detection system from the imaging system). Referring to claim 11, Gupte shows the projector is configured to project the pattern into the scene whether the imaging device captures the images of the pattern as projected into the scene or not (see paragraph 75 the imaging sensor and the depth sensor are separate devices). Referring to claim 12, Gupte shows the projector is configured to project the pattern into the scene independent of the imaging device (see paragraph 75 the imaging sensor and the depth sensors are separate devices). Referring to claims 20 and 28, Gupte shows projecting a pattern and therefore a pattern generator is inherent (see paragraph 75) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 13, 15, 16, 18, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte (20220245832) in view of Fei (20160261300) . Referring to claim 13, Gupte does show that the imaging sensor and the depth sensor are separate however does not specifically show that the projector is movable relative to the imaging device. Fei shows a similar device that includes a projector is movable relative to the imaging device (see figure 2C note Ref 220). It would have been obvious to include the projector movable relative to the imaging device because Gupta shows the use of an imaging sensor that is mobile and separate from the depth sensor and having relative movement between the projector and image sensor would have been obvious to allow for movement of the image sensor. Referring to claim 15, Gupte fails to specifically state the pattern is stationary relative to the scene however Fei shows the projector is configured to project the pattern such that the pattern is stationary relative to the scene (see figure 2C). It would have been obvious to include the stationary pattern as shown by Fei because this allows for the pattern distortion to determine distance to parts of the scene, note this is also taught by Gupte in paragraph 75. Referring to claim 16, Gupte fails to specifically show but the combination of Gupte and Fei shows the projector is configured to be stationary relative to the scene and wherein the imaging device is configured to move relative to the scene (see figure 2c). It would have been obvious to include the stationary pattern as shown by Fei because this allows for the pattern distortion to determine distance to parts of the scene, note this is also taught by Gupte in paragraph 75. Referring to claims 18 and 26, Gupte fails to show but Fei shows a camera configured to capture an image of the scene; and at least one processor configured to: determine a visually indistinct portion of the scene based on the image; and cause the projector to project the pattern onto the visually indistinct portion of the scene (see paragraph 91, note that in the absence of a salient feature the projector can project an IR pattern onto one or more surfaces of the physical environment). It would have been obvious to include the projected pattern on the visually indistinct portion because this allows the movement of the sensor to be determined despite the absence of salient features in the environment . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 14, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte (20220245832) in view of Stafford (20160260251) . Referring to claims 14 and 23, Gupte fails to show but Wallack shows project the pattern into the scene at a first time, wherein the imaging device has a first pose relative to the projector at the first time; and project the pattern into the scene at a second time, wherein the imaging device has a second pose relative to the projector at the second time (see paragraph 58). It would have been obvious to include the change in pattern as shown by Stafford because this allows the projector to encode time information on the projected code. Referring to claim 17, Gupte shows the use of an imaging system that is on a UAV (see figure 7a and 7b) and a projector that is separate from the imaging device (see paragraph 75) however does not specifically indicate that the projector is configured to be moved relative to the scene separately from the imaging device. Stafford shows a similar device that includes the projector is configured to be moved relative to the scene separately from the imaging device (see figure 6 Ref 608). It would have been obvious to include the projector is configured to be moved relative to the scene separately from the imaging device because this allows the projector to be placed in a location that is optimized for the projection area. Referring to claims 19 and 27, Gupte fails to show but Stafford shows a camera configured to capture an image of the scene; and at least one processor configured to analyze the pattern as projected into the scene as represented in the image of the scene, wherein, responsive to analyzing the pattern, the projector is configured to at least one of: adjust an intensity used to project the pattern; adjust a wavelength used to project the pattern; adjust a sparsity of dots of the pattern; adjust sizes of the dots of the pattern; or adjust shapes of the dots of the pattern (see the encoding information based on the projected coded pattern as shown in paragraph 55 also see paragraph 58). It would have been obvious to include the adjustment of the pattern as shown by Stafford because this allows the projector to encode information. Referring to claim 24, Gupte fails to show but Stafford shows the pattern encodes first information and wherein the projector is further configured to change the pattern to encode second information (see paragraph 55 and 58). It would have been obvious to include the encoding and changing of the pattern over time because this allows for changing information to be passed through the projected pattern . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 21, 22, 29, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte (20220245832) in view of Wallack (20180253863) . Referring to claims 21, 22, 29, and 30, Gupte fails to show but Wallack shows a pattern that encodes position information (see paragraph 72). It would have been obvious to include a pattern that encodes position information as shown by Wallack because this allows the imaging device to determine a location in a building based on the projected code. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUKE D RATCLIFFE whose telephone number is (571)272-3110. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST. 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. /LUKE D RATCLIFFE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 2 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 3 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 4 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 5 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 6 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 7 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 8 Art Unit: 3645 Application/Control Number: 18/464,057 Page 9 Art Unit: 3645
Prosecution Insights