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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026, has been entered.
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 June 30, 2026 has been entered and made of record.
Currently pending Claim(s): 1-18
Independent Claim(s): 1, 8, 9
Amended Claim(s): 1, 8, 9, 16-18
Cancelled Claim(s): 6, 11, 14
Claim Objections
In view of Applicant’s amendments to Claim 18, the previous objection to Claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112(b)
In view of Applicant’s amendments to the Claims 1, 8,-9, and 16-18, the 112(b) rejections of Claims 1, 8,-9, and 16-18 have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment
received on June 30, 2026.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102 and 103
In view of amendments filed on June 30, 2026, the Applicant has amended independent Claim 1 to include the limitations of Claim 6. Originally, (in the claim set dated January 23, 2026) 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, wherein the first area and the second area are substantially aligned in a direction of the first period” and was rejected over Takashi (JP Pub No 2012/202771). Claim 6 was rejected over Takashi in view of Yamauchi (US Pub No 2019/0073753).
The Applicant argued (on Remarks pg. 7) that the combination of Takahashi and Yamauchi fails to teach that the first and second areas are separated from each other. The Applicant explained that “Takahashi1’s core methodology relies entirely on a continuous projection without gaps, as introducing separated areas would create void coordinates with no signal”. The Applicant then argued that the pattern taught by Yamauchi cannot be combined with the teachings of Takahashi “because doing so would destroy the primary advantage and basic operability” of Takahashi’s phase shift method.
The Examiner agrees. Although Yamauchi teaches projecting a pattern with separated areas (see Yamauchi, Fig. 8), this pattern is not phase-shifted as taught by Takahashi. Furthermore, although Yamauchi teaches a pattern that may be projected for a phase shift method (see Fig. 12), this pattern lacks a separation between the first and second areas.
However, after conducting an updated search, the Examiner has identified Yoshikawa (US Pub No 2019/0073753), which teaches projecting a continuous pattern using a phase shift method, wherein the pattern comprises a first and second area that are separated from one other.
Thus, the Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection presented in this Office Actions, and the independent claim(s) 1, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi in view of Yoshikawa.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16 is dependent on Claim 6, which is now canceled. The Examiner suggests amending Claim 16 to depend on Claim 7 or Claim 1 in order to resolve the dependency issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 12, 13, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP Pub No 2012/202771), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Yoshikawa (US Publication No 2013/0242090), hereinafter Yoshikawa.
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’),
and the first area and the second are disposed adjacent to each other (see Fig. 1, where first area and second area are adjacent to each other).
PNG
media_image1.png
480
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Takahashi
Takahashi fails to teach that the first area and second area are separated from each other. However, in an analogous art, Yoshikawa teaches a method for projecting a pattern image using the phase shift method (see paragraph [0095], “On the other hand, in the third embodiment, as a distance measurement method. In a phase shift method, a sinusoidal wave pattern (sinusoidal wave pattern light) is projected”),
wherein the pattern comprises a first area and second area which are separated from each other (see Yoshikawa, Fig. 11, shown, below, where the first area and second area are separated from each other.
PNG
media_image2.png
314
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The pattern image generated by Yoshikawa is similar to Fig. 2 (shown below) of the instant application).
PNG
media_image3.png
607
923
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 separation of areas taught by Yoshikawa with the pattern image taught by Takahashi. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the range of luminance measured (see Yoshikawa, paragraph [0009-0010], “The luminance dynamic range of an image sensor used for the image capturing apparatus is limited…If the image luminance of the pattern light is too low, it reaches a level such that it cannot be detected as a signal”, and see paragraph [0109], “According to the third embodiment, it is possible to widen a measurable luminance dynamic range by one-dimensionally luminance-modulating a projection pattern according to the phase shift method”). Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the area separation taught by Yoshikawa with the teachings of Takahashi in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 1.
As to Claim 2, Takahashi in view of Yoshikawa 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 Takahashi, 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_image4.png
224
630
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Formulas of Takahashi
As to Claim 5, Takahashi in view of Yoshikawa 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 Takahashi, 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 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, Yoshikawa teaches a third area located between a first and second area (see Yoshikawa, Fig. 11, shown below, where a third dark area separates the first and second area).
PNG
media_image5.png
314
621
media_image5.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 third area taught by Yoshikawa with the pattern image taught by Takahashi. The motivation for doing so would be to increase the range of luminance measured (see Yoshikawa, paragraph [0009-0010], “The luminance dynamic range of an image sensor used for the image capturing apparatus is limited…If the image luminance of the pattern light is too low, it reaches a level such that it cannot be detected as a signal”, and see paragraph [0109], “According to the third embodiment, it is possible to widen a measurable luminance dynamic range by one-dimensionally luminance-modulating a projection pattern according to the phase shift method”. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine the third area taught by Yoshikawa with the teachings of Takahashi in order to obtain the invention as claimed in Claim 7.
As to Claim 8, Takahashi in view of Yoshikawa teaches a projector (see Takahashi, paragraph [0024], “ a pattern projection device (projector) 3,”) comprising:
an optical device (see Takahashi, Fig. 3 projector 3, projecting light) and
at least one processor (see Takahashi, 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 in view of Yoshikawa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (see Takahashi, 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.
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 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 16, Takahashi in view of Yoshikawa teaches a method of outputting a pattern image, wherein the first luminance is substantially uniform in the first area, and the second luminance is substantially uniform in the second area (see Yoshikawa, Fig.11, where the luminance 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 increase the range of luminance measured (see Yoshikawa, paragraph [0109]).
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 16 and is dependent on a similarly rejected independent claim. Therefore, the rejection and rationale are similar to that of Claim 16.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi et al. (JP 2012/202771), hereinafter Takahashi, in view of Yoshikawa (US Publication No 2013/0242090), hereinafter Yoshikawa, and further in view of in view of Yamauchi et al. (US Publication No 2019/0073753 A1), hereinafter Yamauchi.
As to Claim 3, Takahashi in view of Yoshikawa 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 in view of Yoshikawa 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 is combinable with Takahashi and Yoshikawa, as all three are 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 and Yoshikawa 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 and Yoshikawa with the multiple projector system taught by Yamauchi to obtain the invention disclosed in Claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Inukai (US Pub No 2017/0176178) teaches a method for projecting a pattern image using the phase shift method which comprises a first area and second area.
Hirose et al. (Us Pub No 2021/0262787) teaches a method of projecting a pattern using the phase shift method.
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
/JENNIFER MEHMOOD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2664
Prosecution Insights