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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on October 31, 2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2022-174475 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
Applicants Amendments filed on January 23, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s): 1-18
Independent Claim(s): 1, 8, 9
Amended Claim(s): 1, 6, 8, 9
New Claim(s) 11 - 18
Specification
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the specification, the objections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
received on January 23, 2026.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(d)
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 9-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, with respect to Claim 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 4 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
In view of amendments filed on January 23, 2026, the Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to recite the additional imitation of “wherein the first area and the second area are substantially aligned in a direction of the first period”. Originally, (in the claim set dated October 31, 2023) Claim 1 recited, “A method of outputting a pattern image, the method comprising: outputting the pattern image which is used in a phase shift method, and which includes a first area having first luminance based on at least a first phase in a first period, and including a plurality of pixels adjacent to each other, and a second area different from the first area, having second luminance based on at least a second phase in the first period different from the first phase, and including a plurality of pixels adjacent to each other” and was rejected in view of Hirota (US Pub No 2018/0241978).
The Applicant argued (on Remarks page 11) that Hirota fails to teach the new limitation because Hirota, “merely discloses a second pattern including a first pattern including repetition in first cycles in a first direction, inverted in phase in second cycles in a second direction orthogonal to the first direction.” Figure 13D shows two regions of different phase values, but fails to show that the areas are aligned with respect to the first period. Furthermore, even when the phase is shifted in a direction orthogonal to the x-axis, the first and second areas of the first period have different luminance but are still the same phase. Thus, the examiner agrees that Hirota fails to teach the first area and second area are aligned in a direction of the first period.
Thus, the Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office Actions, and the independent claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 102 as being unpatentable over Takahashi. The arguments with respect to Claims 2 and 5 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18 is directed towards a ‘non-transitory computer-readable storage medium according to claim 16”. However, Claim 16 is a method claim. It appears that Claim 18 should be dependent on Claim 15, which is directed towards a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8-9, and 16-18 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.
The term “substantially” in Claims 1, 8, and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification (see paragraph [0028]) states that the areas are arranged in a tiled manner, and Fig. 2 shows the tiled arrangement, but the specification fails to explicitly state that the first and second areas are ‘aligned’, or specifically define ‘substantially aligned’.
Furthermore, the specification fails to state that the luminance in each area is ‘substantially uniform’. Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show the luminance value of each area, but it is unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art what the term ‘substantially uniform’ means by simply looking at the drawings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2,5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi et al. (JP 2012202771), hereinafter Takahashi.
As to Claim 1, Takahashi teaches a method of outputting a pattern image (see Fig. 1, showing the pattern image), the method comprising:
outputting the pattern image which is used in a phase shift method (see paragraph [0006], “The present invention relates to a technique for measuring a three-dimensional surface shape to be measured, and more particularly to a three-dimensional surface shape calculation method and a three-dimensional surface shape measurement apparatus based on phase calculation using a phase shift method”), and which includes
a first area having first luminance based on at least a first phase in a first period, and including a plurality of pixels adjacent to each other (see paragraph [0020], “A first composition in which a fringe pattern having a first color and a first phase and a fringe pattern having a second color different from the first color and a second phase different from the first phase are synthesized.”, and see Fig.1, where the first area is the white area)
and a second area different from the first area, having second luminance based on at least a second phase in the first period different from the first phase, and including a plurality of pixels adjacent to each other (see Fig. 1, where the dark area is the second area),
wherein the first area and the second area are substantially aligned in a direction of the first period (see Fig 1, where first area and second area are aligned according to the x-axis, and where the x-axis is the ‘first period’).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Takahashi
As to Claim 2, Takahashi teaches method of outputting the pattern image according to claim 1, wherein the first luminance is based on a third phase in a second period different from the first period in addition to the first phase, and the second luminance is based on a fourth phase in the second period in addition to the second phase ((see paragraph [0031], “Four stripe pattern data indicated by a, i, c, and d are generated by a personal computer or the like. A. Stripe pattern 1: color 1 / phase 0 degree a. Stripe pattern 2: Color 2 / phase 90…A composite stripe pattern 1 is generated from the stripe pattern 1 and the stripe pattern 2”, and see the corresponding luminance formulas below, where there are the first two equations are used output a pattern image, and each equation had an x and y component, and thus ensuring that the first area has a first luminance dependent on a first phase in the x-direction and a third phase in the y-direction, and that the second area has a second luminance dependent on a second phase in the x-direction and a fourth phase in the y-direction).
PNG
media_image2.png
224
630
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Formulas of Takahashi
As to Claim 5, Takahashi teaches the method of outputting the pattern image according to claim 1, wherein the first phase and the second phase are different at least 18 degrees from each other (see paragraph [0031], “Four stripe pattern data indicated by a, i, c, and d are generated by a personal computer or the like. A. Stripe pattern 1: color 1 / phase 0 degree a. Stripe pattern 2: Color 2 / phase 90…A composite stripe pattern 1 is generated from the stripe pattern 1 and the stripe pattern 2”, where the first phase and second phase are 90 degrees from each other).
As to Claim 8, Takahashi teaches a projector (see paragraph [0024], “ a pattern projection device (projector) 3,”) comprising:
an optical device (see Fig. 3 projector 3, projecting light) and
at least one processor (see paragraph [0025], “modulation fringe pattern analysis unit 4”), wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the optical device to thereby perform the method of projecting a pattern image as claimed in Claim 1. Thus, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that of Claim 1.
As to Claim 9, Takahashi teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Fig. 3 database (DB) 10) storing a program configured to make a computer execute processing comprising: the method of outputting the pattern image as claimed in Claim 1. Thus, the rejection and rationale are analogous to that of Claim 1.
As to Claim 10, Claim 10 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 2.
As to Claim 13, Claim 13 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 2 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 2.
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 (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.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 3-4, and 6-7, 11-12, and 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2018054410), hereinafter Takahashi in view of Yamauchi et al. (US Publication No 2019/0073753 A1), hereinafter Yamauchi.
As to Claim 3, Takahashi fails to explicitly teach that a ‘first’ projector is used to output a pattern image. However, Yamauchi teaches that multiple projectors can be used to project images (see paragraph [0166], “it is also possible to cause a plurality of projectors 100 to respectively project the image”). Yamauchi and Takahashi are combinable as they both come from analogous fields of image
projection and image correction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method taught by Takahashi with the multiple projectors taught by Yamauchi. The suggestion for doing so would be to prevent shadows caused by unevenness in the projection surface. Yamauchi teaches that “It is also possible to adopt a
form in which a plurality of regions having different colors are arrayed in the longitudinal direction (the
direction crossing the epipolar lines Le1). In the first to sixth embodiments, when a part of an image
projected from the projector 100 is blocked by unevenness of the projection surface Sp and a shadow is
formed, it is also possible to cause a plurality of projectors 100 to respectively project the image from
different directions to prevent a region where the image is not displayed (a region where a shadow is
formed) from being generated” (see paragraph [0165] and [0166]). Thus, it would have been obvious to
combine the method taught by Takahashi with the multiple projector system taught by Yamauchi to obtain the invention disclosed in Claim 3.
As to Claim 4, Takahashi fails to teach a pattern image includes a first pattern image corresponding to the first area and a second pattern image corresponding to the second area, outputting the pattern image includes projecting the first pattern image using a first projector, and projecting the second pattern image using a second projector. However, Yamauchi teaches that multiple projectors can be used to display pattern images (see paragraph [0166, “it is also possible to cause a plurality of projectors 100 to respectively project the image”). Yamauchi and Takahashi are combinable as they both come from analogous fields of image projection and image correction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method taught by Takahashi with the multiple projectors taught by Yamauchi. The suggestion for doing so would be to prevent shadows caused by unevenness in the projection surface. Yamauchi teaches that “It is also possible to adopt a form in which a plurality of regions having different colors are arrayed in the longitudinal direction (the direction crossing the epipolar lines Le1). In the first to sixth embodiments, when a part of an image projected from the projector 100 is blocked by unevenness of the projection surface Sp and a shadow is formed, it is also possible to cause a plurality of projectors 100 to respectively project the image from different directions to prevent a region where the image is not displayed (a region where a shadow is formed) from being generated” (see paragraph [0165] and [0166]). Thus, a first projector can project an image in a first region, and a second projector can project a second image in a second region. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the method taught by Takahashi with the multiple projector system taught by Yamauchi to obtain the invention disclosed in Claim 4.
As to Claim 6, Takahashi fails to explicitly teach that the first and second areas are separated from
each other. However, Yamauchi teaches a projection method in which these areas are separated. See
Fig 8, also shown below. The first and second areas are separated and arranged in a matrix formation
(see paragraph [0111], “the pattern image Ip in this embodiment is an image on which a plurality of unit patterns U (Ur, Ug, Ub, Uc, Um, and Uy) having luminance distributions are arranged in a matrix shape longitudinally and laterally”).
PNG
media_image3.png
341
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
The pattern image generated is similar to Fig. 2 (shown below) of the instant application.
PNG
media_image4.png
607
923
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to combine the method taught by Takahashi with the projection method
taught by Yamauchi. The suggestion for doing so would be to allow for accurate correspondence
between reference and detected coordinates, even when the target surface is uneven. Yamauchi
teaches that “When detecting the reference points, the detecting section 17 generates identification
information on the basis of a color of a detection target unit pattern U and outputs the identification
information to the correction-information generating section 18 together with coordinates. Therefore,
even when a part of the reference points are not detected because of unevenness (a step, etc.) of the
projection surface Sp, it is possible to estimate original positions (positions on the rectangular pattern
image Ip) of the reference points. A correspondence relation between reference coordinates and
detected coordinates is clarified. As a result, the correction-information generating section 18 can
generate correction information using only a detected part of the reference points.” (see paragraph
[0165] and [0166]). Thus, a first projector can project an image in a first region, and a second projector
a project a second image in a second region. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the method taught by Takahashi with the multiple projector system taught by Yamauchi to obtain the invention
disclosed in Claim 6.
As to Claim 7, Takahashi fails to explicitly teach a pattern image that further includes a third area
different from the first area and the second area between the first area and the second area, the third
area having third luminance based on a fifth phase different from both of the first phase and the second
phase, and including a plurality of pixels adjacent to each other. However, Yamauchi teaches a third area
located between a first and second area. See Fig 8, also shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
341
534
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method taught by Takahashi with the projection method taught by Yamauchi. The suggestion for doing so would be to allow for accurate correspondence between reference and detected coordinates, even when the target surface is uneven. Yamauchi teaches that “When detecting the reference points, the detecting section 17 generates identification information on the basis of a color of a detection target unit pattern U and outputs the identification information to the correction-information generating section 18 together with coordinates. Therefore, even when a part of the reference points are not detected because of unevenness (a step, etc.) of the projection surface Sp, it is possible to estimate original positions (positions on the rectangular pattern image Ip) of the reference points. A correspondence relation between reference coordinates and detected coordinates is clarified. As a result, the correction-information generating section 18 can generate correction information using only a detected part of the reference points.” (see paragraph [0165] and [0166]).
Thus, a first projector can project an image in a first region, and a second projector can project a second image in a second region. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the method taught by Takahashi
with the multiple projector system taught by Yamauchi to obtain the invention disclosed in Claim 7.
As to Claim 16, Takahashi in view of Yamauchi teaches method of outputting the pattern image according to claim 6, wherein the first luminance is substantially uniform in the first area, and the second luminance is substantially uniform in the second area (see Fig. 8, where the luminance is substantially uniform in the first and second areas). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the pattern image taught by Yamauchi with the teachings of Takahashi. The motivation for doing so would be to allow for accurate correspondence between reference and detected coordinates, as taught by Yamauchi in paragraph [0165] and [0166].
As to Claim 11, Claim 11 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 6.
As to Claim 12, Claim 12 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 7 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 7.
As to Claim 14, Claim 14 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 6 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 6.
As to Claim 15, Claim 15 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 7 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 7.
As to Claim 17, Claim 17 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 16 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 16.
As to Claim 18, Claim 18 claims the same limitation claimed as Claim 18 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 16.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOUMYA THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-8639. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Jennifer Mehmood can be reached at (571) 272-2976. 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.
/S.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2664 /NANCY BITAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights