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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use terms used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder for performing the claimed function, and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a phase acquisition unit”, “a calibration unit”, “a point cloud acquisition unit”, “a depth map acquisition unit”, and “a depth map fusion unit” recited in claims 6 and 9.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure(s) described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: the processor disclosed in par. 119 of the pre-granted publication.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 3 and 8 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.
In particular, these claims recite “a main camera located at the top and a side camera located on at least one side surface”. It is not clear “located at the top” and “located on at least one side surface” are with respect to what. For example, does “located at the top” mean the main camera is located at the top of an object of interest, or at the top of the projector, or at the top of something else?
Clarification 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 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) 1-3 and 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taubin et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0101382), in view of Rudd et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0078610).
Regarding claim 1, Taubin discloses a three-dimensional (3D) calibration method for
acquiring a phase that is data required for 3D reconstruction from parameters of at least one camera and a projector based on a phase measuring profilometry (PMP) method (Par. 60 discloses acquiring an absolute phase which is data required for 3D reconstruction of an object (see Fig. 2D) from parameters of a camera (e.g. camera offset oc and camera amplitude ac discussed in pars. 50-51) and a projector (e.g. projector offset op and projector amplitude ap discussed in par. 49. The acquisition is based on the PMP method because it includes features such as structured-light projection, phase shifting (see pars. 42 and 48), image capturing, and phase wrapping/unwrapping (see par. 38));
defining a phase-to-depth function for each camera-and-projector combination (Par. 61: “In act 341, a spatial coordinate is determined for a three-dimensional point associated with the pixel being analyzed. The coordinate may comprise a set of coordinates defining a position in three-dimensional space and/or may comprise a distance measurement such as a depth value”) and performing calibration of optimizing the parameters of the camera and the projector (Par. 64: “In some use cases, it may be preferable to select a value of n so that one or more of the sinusoidal patterns has a period equal to an integer number of pixels”. Selecting a proper value of n could be interpreted as performing calibration of optimizing the parameters of the camera and projector); and
acquiring a point cloud that includes depth information using the optimized parameters of the camera and the projector (Par. 27: “When the pattern of image 205 is projected onto a target, each of the stripes of light effectively represents a different angle between the projector and the location where the light is incident in the scene. When a camera images the target, therefore, if the horizontal position within the pattern of image 205 can be determined, this establishes an angle between the projector and the imaged position, allowing triangulation of the position as discussed above and shown in FIG. 1B. For instance, pixels within the image of a hand illuminated with a high frequency sinusoidal pattern, as shown in FIG. 2C, can be analyzed to determine positions of a number of three-dimensional points to build a so-called “point cloud” of the hand as shown in FIG. 2D”. In particular, if n is selected such that one or more of the sinusoidal patterns has a period equal to an integer number of pixels, as disclosed in par. 64 cited above, it could be said the acquired point cloud uses optimized parameters of the camera and projector).
Taubin, however, does not disclose that its method is multi-views.
In the same field of endeavor, Rudd teaches a method of and system for measuring a three-dimensional surface by projecting structured illumination on the surface and acquiring a plurality of sets of images. The sets of images are processed to obtain a plurality of point clouds. A spatial accumulator is defined. A first point cloud of the plurality of point clouds is combined with a second point cloud of the plurality of point clouds into the spatial accumulator. Spatial coordinates of the surface are generated based on the contents of the spatial accumulator (See the abstract). Rudd further teaches a multi-camera system for acquiring images of the 3D surface (See Figs. 3 and 9 and the associated description).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the multi-camera system of Rudd into Taubin to fill in areas of occlusion resulted from using a single, fixed camera (Rudd, par. 41).
Regarding claim 2, Taubin in view of Rudd teaches the 3D calibration method of claim 1, wherein the acquiring of the phase comprises:
projecting a series of structured light images using the projector; detecting projected light that is reflected from an object using a sensor of the at least one camera; and acquiring the phase required for the 3D reconstruction using a single camera-and-projector pair (See Fig. 3 and par. 27).
Regarding claim 3, Taubin in view of Rudd teaches the 3D calibration method of claim 1, wherein the acquiring of the phase comprises configuring a main camera located at the top and a side camera located on at least one side surface, and acquiring the phase based on the PMP method using the projector located between the main camera and the side camera (Fig. 3 and pars. 41-42 of Rudd would render this limitation obvious).
Claims 6-8 recite similar limitations as respective claims 1-3, but are directed to a 3D calibration apparatus. Since Taubin also discloses such an apparatus (See par. 93), these claims could be rejected under the same rationales set forth in the rejection of their respective claims.
Claim(s) 4-5 and and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taubin in view of Rudd, and further in view of Lu et al. (Pub. No. US 20240119613).
Regarding claim 4, Taubin in view of Rudd teaches the 3D calibration method of claim 1, further comprising:
performing transformation from world coordinates to camera coordinates for all points in the point cloud, storing a z value of the camera coordinates, and acquiring a depth map for each camera-and-projector pair (See Fig. 1B and par. 61 of Taubin);
.
In the same field of endeavor, Lu teaches computing pixel-wise confidences of a first depth map and a second depth map, and performing a confidence-based depth map fusion that integrates the first and second depth maps into a single depth map based on the confidences (See Figs. 4A-4B and par. 29).
In light of Lu’s teaching, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Taubin by inputting the initial depth map created at step 341 to a first kernel and a second kernel to generate a first depth map and a second depth map, and fusing the first and second depth maps to create a fused depth map based on pixel-wise confidence levels. The motivation would have been to avoid a dilemma of adopting a larger kernel of pixels with greater depth accuracy (but less resolution) or adopting a smaller kernel of pixels with larger resolution (but less depth accuracy) (Lu, par. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Taubin in view of Rudd and Lu teaches the 3D calibration method of claim 4, wherein the performing of the 3D reconstruction by acquiring the final point cloud comprises:
performing a depth map fusion through a weighted sum with a depth map of the main camera along with a corresponding confidence for points visible to the main camera, with respect to points in a 3D space acquirable through a depth of each pixel when computing the pixel-wise confidences of the depth maps; and performing the depth map fusion through a weighted sum in a depth map of a remaining side camera for points not visible to the main camera (Lu discloses at par. 28 a weighting component that performs a weighted sum of the first and second depth maps to generate the fused depth map. Since the system of Taubin as modified by Rudd comprises multiple cameras, the weighted sum operation should be performed on depth maps corresponding to each camera).
Claims 9 and 10 recite similar limitations as respective claims 4 and 5, but are directed to a 3D calibration apparatus. Since Taubin also discloses such an apparatus (See par. 93), these claims could be rejected under the same rationales set forth in the rejection of their respective claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG X NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1591. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm 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, King Poon can be reached at (571)272-7440. 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.
/PHONG X NGUYEN/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2617